What happens if the teaching on contraception changes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter David_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

David_B

Guest
What happens to the Church’s credibility if Pope Benedict XVI decides to reverse Humanae Vitae and allow some forms of artificial birth control?
 
I’m sorry, but the poll question shows a lack of understanding of the immutable nature of Truth as taught by the Catholic Church.

The teaching by the Church on subjects like contraception and women priests CANNOT be changed, for the church is not authorized to teach other than the truth provided by God, regardless of how many choose to act otherwise.

Please stick around and learn about why the Church teaches as she does and why the change you are asking about is not possible, now or at any point in the future, regardless of who sits in the Chair of Peter.

CARose

PS, you may want to take a look at this thread regarding contraception: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=62446
 
Whether the Church’s teaching on contraception is infallible has not been addressed by the magisterium (unlike Pope John Paul II’s teachings in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Evangelium Vitae, and Veritatis Splendor). Currently, the question is a matter of debate among the various theologians, with no consensus as of yet. Thus, the poll question is perfectly reasonable.
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
Whether the Church’s teaching on contraception is infallible has not been addressed by the magisterium (unlike Pope John Paul II’s teachings in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Evangelium Vitae, and Veritatis Splendor). Currently, the question is a matter of debate among the various theologians, with no consensus as of yet. Thus, the poll question is perfectly reasonable.
Click to expand...
I think what is most unsettling to me is the permissiveness to use methods of artificial birth control, the “morning after pill” to rape victims. Now I really do sympathize with victims of rape…but I find it difficult to defend that contraception to never be allowed since it seems like it is happening in this case.

Some more info here catholicinsight.com/online/bioethics/mornpill.shtml
 
David B:
I think what is most unsettling to me is the permissiveness to use methods of artificial birth control, the “morning after pill” to rape victims. Now I really do sympathize with victims of rape…but I find it difficult to defend that contraception to never be allowed since it seems like it is happening in this case.

Some more info here catholicinsight.com/online/bioethics/mornpill.shtml
Click to expand...
Rape is not intercourse, and the pill is not contraception. It is self defense against an unjust aggressor. A woman may take action before, during, and after the attack to thwart it.

Of course, as the Bishops are clear to point out, it may not be administered in situations where conception might have occurred.
 
40.png
1ke:
Rape is not intercourse, and the pill is not contraception. It is self defense against an unjust aggressor. A woman may take action before, during, and after the attack to thwart it.

Of course, as the Bishops are clear to point out, it may not be administered in situations where conception might have occurred.
Click to expand...
I try to accept this on the level of obedience, of course. But I suppose I just have a difficult time seeing the ends justifying the means here if we believe that the use of artificial birth control is always wrong. This also seems contrary to the notion of being open to all life.
 
I voted other.

Other - this scenario will NEVER happen.

The possibility for a hypothetical here is nil. Here’s why - contraception removes God from the sexual act. It’s anti-Divine Will, it’s anti-family, it’s anti-Church. Period.

God created the world and it was good. God created man and he was very good.

Contraception violates the first commandment (and the First Commandment), but the very first instruction from God to man in Genesis 1:

Gen 1:28: God blessed them, saying: “Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth.”

Even if any pope wanted to change this church teaching, the Holy Spirit would not allow it. The action of God in the Church cannot negate God’s Word.
 
It’ll never happen. It’s doctrine!

See CCC 2366:

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."152 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."153 151. Familiaris Consortio 30.
152. Humanae Vitae 11.
153. HV 12; cf. Pius XI, encyclical, Casti connubii.

2366 through 2379 cover the fecundity of marriage. Read it at:
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art6.htm

The footnoted docs are available in the library of the Vatican website:
www.vatican.va
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
Whether the Church’s teaching on contraception is infallible has not been addressed by the magisterium (unlike Pope John Paul II’s teachings in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Evangelium Vitae, and Veritatis Splendor). Currently, the question is a matter of debate among the various theologians, with no consensus as of yet. Thus, the poll question is perfectly reasonable.
Click to expand...
Actually, isn’t it infallible by virtue of the ordinary magisterium? That is, constant Church teaching against it makes it infallible?

Scott
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
Whether the Church’s teaching on contraception is infallible has not been addressed by the magisterium…
Click to expand...
Wow. You say that like it’s true. Fortunately, the Church’s teaching on contraception is infallible. It is a doctrine, and, while it might develop, it won’t be reversed.

“This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.” Familiaris Consortio (emphasis added)

– Mark L. Chance.
 
Scott Waddell:
Actually, isn’t it infallible by virtue of the ordinary magisterium? That is, constant Church teaching against it makes it infallible?

Scott
Click to expand...
Go to the head of the class!

This is one of those things that has been the constant teaching of the Church. Theologians can thrash away at it but they do not trump the Magisterium.
 
David B:
I try to accept this on the level of obedience, of course. But I suppose I just have a difficult time seeing the ends justifying the means here if we believe that the use of artificial birth control is always wrong. This also seems contrary to the notion of being open to all life.
Click to expand...
Contraception is always wrong. Self defense is not. You are confusing the fact that the same means has two different ends. The pill is just a medication, it’s morally neutral. It depends on what you take if for, how it is used.

For example, let’s say that during the attack the woman is able to “interrupt” her attacker by pushing him off and running away before he is able to “finish”. Is this coitus interruptus-- contraception? You would say “no” automatically, it’s self defense. This same act,* in the context of marital intercourse*, is contraception.

So, don’t get hung up that because it’s a pill she’s taking it’s automatically contraception, examine the situation as self-defense against the aggressor. It becomes clear.
 
The Church change its teaching on divine revelation :eek: I knew I saw that pig flying the other day! :rolleyes: I can see maybe a few things being given leeway perhaps if a member of a couple contracts an std through no fault of their own eg Aids through a blood transfusion, thus they’d be using a condom not for Contraception but rather for protection, I wouldn’t hold my breath on it though as the couple would be able to sacrifice their suffering to God. Also I’m not even sure the situation I wrote is any different.
 
40.png
1ke:
So, don’t get hung up that because it’s a pill she’s taking it’s automatically contraception, examine the situation as self-defense against the aggressor. It becomes clear.
Click to expand...
The sticking point with the “morning after pill” is that creates a chemically hostile environment in the womb. It doesn’t necessarily prevent contraception, but prevents implantation of an embryo in the wall of the uterus. As such, it has the potential to kill an unborn person. Even if this unborn person is the product of rape, he or she doesn’t deserve death.

The use of the “morning after pill” prior to conception is not problematic. After conception, it is not permissible. The problem comes with determining whether conception has already taken place.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
Same thing that happens if the Church proclaims that Christ is not really divine after all, and didn’t really die for our sins, and oh, by the way, maybe there’s no God.

You figure it out.

Peace.
John
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top