Website arguing that the teaching on birth control can be changed

[svoboda]

members.aol.com/revising/

… and also that distinguishing between NFP and non-abortive ABC is against reason/natural law

Read if you are interested, comment etc.

members.aol.com/revising/law.html This is an especially interesting article about natural law and sexuality

 

[John_Higgins]

I bounced around the site. It doesn’t appear to be a bad one. Its positions appear to be well researched.

As far as Humanae Vitae not being an infallible teaching, I’ve believed that since I understood the definition of infallibility. It is certainly a valid teaching, but it does not meet the infallibilty test.

Ever wonder why Humanae Vitae was Pope Paul’s last encyclical, although he reigned another 10 years??

John

 

[svoboda]

members.aol.com/revising/nfp.html Compares ABC and NFP

 

[svoboda]

John Higgins:

Ever wonder why Humanae Vitae was Pope Paul’s last encyclical, although he reigned another 10 years??

John

No, but I am wondering now!

 

[stadre]

svoboda,

I commend you for your search for more information about birth control. I don’t know if you are doing this, but until you research the REAL teachings of the Church, all the arguments for contraception still will not give you the whole picture. (Although it will help if you only want to be affirmed in your beliefs–rather than understand!)

You will be interested to know that before Humanae Vitae, the pope had convened a council to study the issue. The council’s recommendations were to allow contraception. What you need to remember, though, is that the pope cannot teach in error on faith and morals. It doesn’t matter if every person on earth believes the opposite it true, it is impossible for him to teach error. So, people have argued that “it wasn’t infallible,” but that really doesn’t fly in the beliefs of Catholics. It also doesn’t fly in its sense of logic (and you will find that Church teachings on these matters are, in fact, logical). Humanae Vitae is a beautiful document that you should check out on your search.

The website you gave is full of great distortions of Church teachings. You will not find yourself better informed on the issue by looking at this site only. The author obviously does not understand much (if anything) of this topic.
I wish you luck on your search, although I warn you as well. If you are really looking for the truth and you find it, you may find it life-changing!

God bless.

 

[shannyk]

I find this quote from the posted “Birth Control and the Catholic Church” website to be troubling…

“a. If after appropriate study, reflection and prayer, a person is convinced that his or her conscience is correct (well formed ), the person not only may, but MUST follow the dictates of conscience rather than the teachings of the Church.” :ehh:

I see red flags a wavin’ in my face when I read that. There is much better info on the net about the teachings of the Church on NFP and ABC. I for one am going to be passing this site over.

 

[1ke]

Please research the actual Church teaching. This website is full of false information.

AOL is not the Magesterium. If you seek to understand church teaching, then study church documents not a bunch of bunk from a group of dissenters.

 

[fix]

“a. If after appropriate study, reflection and prayer, a person is convinced that his or her conscience is correct (well formed ), the person not only may, but MUST follow the dictates of conscience rather than the teachings of the Church.”

This contradicts Church teaching. It is troubling.

**2039 **… At the same time the conscience of each person should avoid confining itself to individualistic considerations in its moral judgments of the person’s own acts. As far as possible conscience should take account of the good of all, as expressed in the moral law, natural and revealed, and consequently in the law of the Church and in the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium on moral questions. Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church.

 

[setter]

shannyk:

I find this quote from the posted “Birth Control and the Catholic Church” website to be troubling…

“a. If after appropriate study, reflection and prayer, a person is convinced that his or her conscience is correct (well formed ), the person not only may, but MUST follow the dictates of conscience rather than the teachings of the Church.” :ehh:

I see that this web site conspicuously omitted this citation from the CCC:

1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings. (CCC)

 

[shannyk]

The more I read of that site the scarier it gets…

If the person/people who authored that site put as much effort into trying to understand the teachings of the Church and even better yet, praying for some HUMILITY,as they have in trying to discredit the authority of the Church, I doubt we’d be discussing this. The church doesn’t need to change for us; we need to change for the Church. Pray God will touch the lives of these people and pray their message doesn’t seep into the hearts of good intentioned people.

 

[setter]

This emotionally flavored excerpt from the “Summary and Conclusions” basically sums up their argument that obedient Catholics who adhere to HV are basically unintelligent nimrods, the Magisterium is made up of insensitive power wielding tyrants, that what is intrinsically sinful should be taken as a “gift to the people of this age”, and use the words of Jesus to a condone and promote God’s people to “greater willingness to make SIN a living reality in marital sexuality”. If it were not that their goal is so diabolical, it would actually be comical.

Summary and Conclusions

What is obvious is that the Magisterium’s ongoing insistence on the truth of its teaching in this matter is based more on authoritarianism than reason. It seems that, in the end, the issue for the Magisterium is more about preserving the illusion of papal inerrancy in this matter than truth itself.

In short, the Magisterium needs to revise its teachings on human sexuality to allow for artificial contraception in certain cases!

Much could be gained as well by consulting with married couples about their own experiences of sexuality. Such consultation was utilized on the commission authorized by Pope John XXIII to investigate the morality of artificial contraception. This commission–composed of married couples, bishops and theologians–recommended that the Magisterium allow couples to use artificial contraception, but Pope Paul VI took matters into his own hands and issued Humanae vitae. No teaching in modern times has divided the Church more than this one! Subsequent Popes have only worsened matters by upholding the encyclical.

Artificial contraception should be viewed as a gift to the people of this age which makes possible a deeper development of the unitive aspect of marital lovemaking.

The current reluctance to change is a refusal to grow, thus giving evidence of a most unwholesome attachment to power and control. This, too, gives bad example to the rest of the world!

Jesus said, “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.” May all those who have read through the reflections on this website be lead to a greater understanding of truth, and a greater willingness to make love a living reality in marital sexuality.

 

[John_Higgins]

Another question: If Pope Paul didn’t think it could possibly be changed, why did he left the Commission continue their work and recommendation?

John

 

[setter]

John Higgins:

Another question: If Pope Paul didn’t think it could possibly be changed, why did he left the Commission continue their work and recommendation?

John

I would imagine to give the issue a contemporary airing out of all the possible areas and disciplines of consideration for the why the Church has and continues to teach prohibition against ABC.

I believe that having this commission to solicit (name removed by moderator)ut and recommendations helps to explain why *Humanae Vitae * offers such compassionate acknowledgment and lovingly firm counsel to the challenges and diffculties that this teaching presents in the current cultural context and the often personal sacrifice demanded of faithful Catholic couples.

 

[1ke]

John Higgins:

Another question: If Pope Paul didn’t think it could possibly be changed, why did he left the Commission continue their work and recommendation?

John

The common misconception is that the papal commission was convened to study the issue of “allowing contraception” which is completely untrue.

The commission was convened to research the newly developed hormonal pill to determine if the Pill was contraception or if it worked in a way that did not contradict church teaching.

Of course, it does work as a contraceptive and therefore could not be allowed.

 

[luvmykids]

1ke:

The common misconception is that the papal commission was convened to study the issue of “allowing contraception” which is completely untrue.

The commission was convened to research the newly developed hormonal pill to determine if the Pill was contraception or if it worked in a way that did not contradict church teaching.

Of course, it does work as a contraceptive and therefore could not be allowed.

Through that research, not only did they find it to be a contraceptive, but also an abortifacient.

 

[svoboda]

stadre:

svoboda,

I commend you for your search for more information about birth control. I don’t know if you are doing this, but until you research the REAL teachings of the Church, all the arguments for contraception still will not give you the whole picture. (Although it will help if you only want to be affirmed in your beliefs–rather than understand!)

I used to be a very conservative Catholic and read quite a bit on this issue. I think I know Church teaching.

You will be interested to know that before Humanae Vitae, the pope had convened a council to study the issue. The council’s recommendations were to allow contraception. What you need to remember, though, is that the pope cannot teach in error on faith and morals. It doesn’t matter if every person on earth believes the opposite it true, it is impossible for him to teach error. So, people have argued that “it wasn’t infallible,” but that really doesn’t fly in the beliefs of Catholics. It also doesn’t fly in its sense of logic (and you will find that Church teachings on these matters are, in fact, logical). Humanae Vitae is a beautiful document that you should check out on your search.

I have read the parts of Humanae Vitae that relate to NFP. I disagree with your assesment of this document though. Popes have written encyclicals in the past that have now been contradicted. I don’t know if you’ve looked at my other posts, but one idea a pope CONDEMNED is that it’s not the will of the Spirit to burn heretics.

Encyclicals can be wrong. I doubt that any pope now would agree with that. Another thing is that it is necessary for the salvation of every person to be subject to the Roman Pontiff to be saved. That was in a a papal bull, so what? Again, now we don’t believe this.

The website is actually pretty Catholic in the sense that they believe in the authority of the Church. But they allege that our UNDERSTANDING of natural law has changed, it has before (for example until Vatican II the unitive portion of sex was not recognized/elevated to equal with procreative).

 

[svoboda]

1ke:

Please research the actual Church teaching. This website is full of false information.

AOL is not the Magesterium. If you seek to understand church teaching, then study church documents not a bunch of bunk from a group of dissenters.

I have studied them, I’ve discussed them with several priests.

I find their reasoning about natural law inadequate, it doesn’t make sense to me.

I don’t want to agree with an idea based on who says it, I want to evalute its merits independent of its author.

 

[svoboda]

fix:

This contradicts Church teaching. It is troubling.

**2039 **… At the same time the conscience of each person should avoid confining itself to individualistic considerations in its moral judgments of the person’s own acts. As far as possible conscience should take account of the good of all, as expressed in the moral law, natural and revealed, and consequently in the law of the Church and in the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium on moral questions. Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church.

But even if the Holy Spirit guides the Church, he doesn’t come down to reveal full and complete teachings. Even conservative Catholics agree that understanding of doctrine develops with time.

In the past the Church did not acknowledge the unitive/loving aspect of sex, that came with Vatican II. Its understnading of natural law in this area was very poor (perhaps because of its celibate clergy who would not have known about the unitive part of sex). Who is to say that understanding will not change again, I think it will.

Other people may be more intelligent than the popes, they may have a far deeper understanding of a given subject, they may have better reasons for believing as they do. Personally I would rather believe things because of their merit, not because of who says them.

 

[stadre]

svoboda:

I used to be a very conservative Catholic and read quite a bit on this issue. I think I know Church teaching.

The things you write here show otherwise. It isn’t that you disagree, it is the way you disagree. It demonstrates a lack of knowledge of true teaching. Just because you “think” you know the teaching, doesn’t mean you do, especially when you think that the website you provided does faithfully represent the teachings. Try that book I recommended last night. Unless you read it with an open mind, it is certainly possible to still disagree, but you will much better be able to agrue your reasons against it when you have the facts (and reasons for them) at your hands.

 

[fix]

svoboda:

But even if the Holy Spirit guides the Church, he doesn’t come down to reveal full and complete teachings. Even conservative Catholics agree that understanding of doctrine develops with time.

This seems a confusing thought? The Church claims She contains the fullness of truth. That we may grow in understanding in no way means the Church will contradict, or refute, a teaching.

In the past the Church did not acknowledge the unitive/loving aspect of sex, that came with Vatican II.

Please provide proof.

Its understnading of natural law in this area was very poor (perhaps because of its celibate clergy who would not have known about the unitive part of sex). Who is to say that understanding will not change again, I think it will.

The natural law understanding became deeper, with JPII, it did not contradict what was taught before.

Other people may be more intelligent than the popes, they may have a far deeper understanding of a given subject, they may have better reasons for believing as they do. Personally I would rather believe things because of their merit, not because of who says them.

Does this not contradict the faith? If the Holy Spirit does not infallibly guide the pope and bishops in union with him, then how do I know who to follow? Majority rule?