What happens if the teaching on contraception changes?

[p.e.driver]

David B:

What happens to the Church’s credibility if Pope Benedict XVI decides to reverse Humanae Vitae and allow some forms of artificial birth control?

Humanae Vitae was not the beginning of this doctrine…YES doctrine NOT discipline. Just like Priests will always be men… that is doctrine… but some day in about 200 years they MIGHT be allowed to marry… that is only discipline.

 

[john_ennis]

Catholic2003:

Some Catholics think that this is so. Other Catholics do not. Neither viewpoint is unfaithful to the magisterium, as the magisterium has not made a pronouncement on the infallibility of this teaching.

There is even a fringe opinion that Humanae Vitae is ex cathedra.

This teaching could very well be infallible. My only point is that its infallibility is still a legitimate matter for debate among faithful Catholics, as its infallibility has not been settled by the magisterium.

“Dogma” is the word for infallible doctrine. I’ve never said that the teaching wasn’t authentic (non-infallible) doctrine.

Whether ex cathedra or not, objectively infallible or not, can we agree that the teaching on contraception is official doctrine?

Is it a belief that official teaching on faith and morals can change?

Has the Church ever officially proclaimed something sinful, then changed it?

Peace.
John

 

[Karin]

David B:

What happens to the Church’s credibility if Pope Benedict XVI decides to reverse Humanae Vitae and allow some forms of artificial birth control?

Why should anything change? So many catholics already practice ABC that it would not make any difference except perhaps allow them to get “out of the closet”.

 

[Catholic2003]

john ennis:

Whether ex cathedra or not, objectively infallible or not, can we agree that the teaching on contraception is official doctrine?

Yes, the Church’s teaching on contraception is official doctrine, and faithful Catholics need to give it a religious submission of mind and will, as described in canon 752.
john ennis:

Is it a belief that official teaching on faith and morals can change?

Has the Church ever officially proclaimed something sinful, then changed it?

Good question. I haven’t read any scholarly articles on this, but on the surface it seems to me that this has happened. In the early Church, being in the military was considered so sinful as to be incompatible with the Christian life, and those in the military were not allowed to enter the Church until they resigned from the military. St. Augustine’s City of God was an early work that led to changing this view, to the point where Christians were expected to join the Crusades in the middle ages.

Another example that we discussed here recently dealt with the sinfulness of marital relations during menses, which was general considered sinful in the middle ages, but now is not.

 

[sweetchuck]

cheddarsox:

If God wanted or needed our co operation to bring souls to the world, then any effort to thwart that would be equally immoral.
If God is capable of having us conceive even when using NFP correctly, then God is capable of having us conceive through a failure of barrier method as well.

Please read up on Theology of the Body.

God doesn’t want you not to have a sex life with your spouse.

God does not demand that every time people have sex they conceive. If he did, women would not have a menstrual cycle, they would just be perpetually fertile.

And the difference between artificial contraception and natural family planning is openness to creation. In artificial contraception, there is no openness. Children are an “accident.” This frequently results in their murder.

If couples conceive on natural family planning when they aren’t trying, the child is seen more as a gift because of their spirit of openness.

Natural family planning does not set up a barrier to conception the way artificial contraception does, it is utilizing the natural order that God created. God did not intend the human invention spermicide for sex any more than he intended heroin for intravenous injection. Contraception is against the natural order. It abuses the couple, especially the woman.

There is another Genesis basis for the anti-contraception argument. We see contraception in its most primitive form…

Gen. 38:8-10: Then Judah said to Onan, “Unite with your brother’s widow, in fulfillment of your duty as brother-in-law, and thus preserve your brother’s line.” Onan, however, knew that the descendants would not be counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brother’s widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother. What he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too.

 

[Catholic2003]

john ennis:

Has the Church ever officially proclaimed something sinful, then changed it?

Another example just came up again in the Apologetics forum – Prior to Vatican II, attendance at a Protestant worship services was taught to be sinful, but now it is permissible.

 

[mike182d]

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.

Is it the child’s fault that his father is a rapist? Should we kill all children who were a product of rape?

You’d be surprised how many children born from rape would disagree with you.

 

[sweetchuck]

Another example just came up again in the Apologetics forum – Prior to Vatican II, attendance at a Protestant worship services was taught to be sinful, but now it is permissible.

Oh, then I suppose that all Catholic moral teachings are up in the air and should be disregarded as being transitional.

Puhlease.

This is completely irrelevant. What do Protestant worship services have to do with the Church’s teachings on contraception?

Nothing!

I am certain that the “80 percent” of Catholics (according to the media) who disagree with the Church’s teachings on contraception are all part of the group of the 99 percent of Catholics who don’t understand the Church’s teachings on contraception.

Everyone of you who would rather use a condom or use the birth control pill and hope that the Church will change her teachings needs to pick up a theology of the body book and pray that you come away with the understanding of what makes you wrong. You need to sit down and read Humanae Vitae (papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6humana.htm) and find out why you are wrong. You need to understand why artificial contraception is immoral. You need to investigate why it is a socially acceptable form of sexism. You need to investigate why it will destroy your marriage.

Ignorance is not a defense. We have been told it is wrong, and the words of every one who has told us so will bear witness against us if we do not adhere to this teaching. Majority does not rule the Kingdom of Heaven. Though EVERY Catholic may believe that artificial contraception is OK, the Church does not have the authority to allow the removal of the creative aspect from conjugal love. I suggest artificial contraception users conform their lives and repent from such grave evils. The teaching will not change, neither today, nor tomorrow, nor in the 4th millenium.

 

[Catholic2003]

sweetchuck:

Oh, then I suppose that all Catholic moral teachings are up in the air and should be disregarded as being transitional.

I think you need to reread canon 752. This time pay special attention to the “religious submission of intellect and will” part. The “avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine” part is also very good.

sweetchuck:

This is completely irrelevant. What do Protestant worship services have to do with the Church’s teachings on contraception?

John Ennis asked a question, and I contributed an answer to that question. Do you have a problem with that?

 

[manualman]

Specific moral judgements HAVE changed over time. But not in the way some would like to spin it. The changes have all revolved around cultural conditions.

For example, it was once prohibited to have ones remains cremated. Today is it discouraged, but permitted. This is because cremation came about as a public proclamation against the idea of resurrection. Today it is often an economic or environmental consideration, not spiritual. Different cultural circumstances.

Usury is another common example. It was once considered gravely sinful to charge interest. This was a valid ban back in a slower age, when the economy was based more on barter than currency and inflation was an unknown concept. Once society changed to be currency based and inflation came into the picture, it BECAME just to charge a reasonable rate of interest for the use of capital.

Military service under the Roman empire of early Christian days WOULD have been an abomination. Not so in a more just society. Does that help?

But contraception is not a cultural issue. It has been described as INTRINSICALLY evil.

Any man (can’t speak for the ladies) that says NFP and condoms are equivalent either has never properly practiced NFP or has libido problems. NFP requires a difficult sacrifice which serves as a nudge to remind the couple to constantly examine their openness to children. Condoms, on the other hand encourage couples to focus solely on pleasure. (OK, I guess he may also have no serious reasons to postpone and is narrow enough to assume nobody else does either)

Personally, I take great comfort in knowing that NFP takes heat from ‘both sides’ of the catholic spectrum. When you are only taking flak from one side, it usually says something about your position…

 

[john_ennis]

Catholic2003:

Yes, the Church’s teaching on contraception is official doctrine, and faithful Catholics need to give it a religious submission of mind and will, as described in canon 752.

Good question. I haven’t read any scholarly articles on this, but on the surface it seems to me that this has happened. In the early Church, being in the military was considered so sinful as to be incompatible with the Christian life, and those in the military were not allowed to enter the Church until they resigned from the military. St. Augustine’s City of God was an early work that led to changing this view, to the point where Christians were expected to join the Crusades in the middle ages.

Another example that we discussed here recently dealt with the sinfulness of marital relations during menses, which was general considered sinful in the middle ages, but now is not.

Whoa! Now wait uhm minute–my Catholicism is at stake, here. The Church officially taught (not simply “it was generally considered”) that sex during menses was sinful, or being in the military? I’d really be surprised.

If so, I see no reason why abortion itself couldn’t eventually be called not objectively sinful.

Peace.
John

Ah, and I just read the other thread re the sinfulness of attending Protestant services, under the old Catechism. Clearly an official teaching, which has changed…
This is going to take time to absorb.

 

[1ke]

mike182d:

Is it the child’s fault that his father is a rapist? Should we kill all children who were a product of rape?

You’d be surprised how many children born from rape would disagree with you.

Ummm… helllooo… please read my posts more carefully before accusing me of promoting abortion, which I have never done nor would I ever do seeing as how it is murder and intrinsically evil.

Right below the paragraph you quoted is *the rest of my post * which says:

Of course, as the Bishops are clear to point out, it may not be administered in situations where conception might have occurred.

I am highly offended, Mike182, and I believe you owe me an apology.

 

[cheddarsox]

sweetchuck:

Please read up on Theology of the Body.

God doesn’t want you not to have a sex life with your spouse.

God does not demand that every time people have sex they conceive. If he did, women would not have a menstrual cycle, they would just be perpetually fertile.

And the difference between artificial contraception and natural family planning is openness to creation. In artificial contraception, there is no openness. Children are an “accident.” This frequently results in their murder.

If couples conceive on natural family planning when they aren’t trying, the child is seen more as a gift because of their spirit of openness.

Natural family planning does not set up a barrier to conception the way artificial contraception does, it is utilizing the natural order that God created. God did not intend the human invention spermicide for sex any more than he intended heroin for intravenous injection. Contraception is against the natural order. It abuses the couple, especially the woman.

There is another Genesis basis for the anti-contraception argument. We see contraception in its most primitive form…

Gen. 38:8-10: Then Judah said to Onan, “Unite with your brother’s widow, in fulfillment of your duty as brother-in-law, and thus preserve your brother’s line.” Onan, however, knew that the descendants would not be counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brother’s widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother. What he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too.

Nothing you said, or quoted responded to my point. I already stated that I am not arguing against NFP, nor am I arguing for ABC. I was arguing that if the reason NFP is immoral (as another poster stated) is because God needs our fertility to bring souls into the world, then it seems to me that any attempt on our part to thwart the bringing of those souls, is immoral. If we are actively preventing the birth of souls that God intends to be born, then we are acting selfishly and immorally.
And, if, as is so often stated on these forums, NFP is superior in the “spacing of births” to any form of ABC, than it would seem that NFP would be even more immoral, because it is more effective in keeping those souls from being born.

I am questioning the sense of that particular argument, not NFP. I am actually suggesting that according to that line of thinking, perhaps NFP is not moral.

If Onan had lain with his brothers wife, only when he knew the wife could not conceive, would that have pleased God? Would that have served God’s purpose? I think not.

cheddar

 

[Chris_Jacobsen]

If the teaching on contraception changed, I would never go to church again for any reason, including funerals.

Now I only highly suspect that the Catholic Church and Jesus Christ have betrayed us. If the teaching on contraception changed, I would know for certain that the Catholic Church and Jesus Christ have betrayed us.

 

[byzmelkite]

Though it is in fact impossible for the Church’s teaching on birth control to be changed, were it hypothetically to be reversed, it would prove that the Catholic Church is a lie and that Christ was wrong. In that case, I would cease being a Christian. Thanks be to God though that the Church is true and Christ is true to his word and the teaching will not change. God bless.

 

[Prometheum_x]

cheddarsox:

Nothing you said, or quoted responded to my point. I already stated that I am not arguing against NFP, nor am I arguing for ABC. I was arguing that if the reason NFP is immoral (as another poster stated) is because God needs our fertility to bring souls into the world, then it seems to me that any attempt on our part to thwart the bringing of those souls, is immoral. If we are actively preventing the birth of souls that God intends to be born, then we are acting selfishly and immorally.
And, if, as is so often stated on these forums, NFP is superior in the “spacing of births” to any form of ABC, than it would seem that NFP would be even more immoral, because it is more effective in keeping those souls from being born.

I am questioning the sense of that particular argument, not NFP. I am actually suggesting that according to that line of thinking, perhaps NFP is not moral.

If Onan had lain with his brothers wife, only when he knew the wife could not conceive, would that have pleased God? Would that have served God’s purpose? I think not.

cheddar

I would agree with you and say that this particular argument is weak at best.

Since NFP can be used for selfish purposes (like most things in the world), the argument should focus on bringing to light the respective differences in the nature of NFP and contraception.

Nothing material is intrinsically evil, so contraception cannot be evil because of its material components.

Both contraception and NFP are methods for achieving a goal: no children for any given length of time.

The problem with contraception cannot be that it allows spouses to avoid fertility, for it is in that regard identical with NFP.

Thus, if there is a problem with contraception, it must be the manner in which it accomplishes the goal, since the problem lies neither in its physical components or its goal.

What, if any, difference is there between the method of contraception and NFP? Is that difference significant?

I think if people were to focus on those questions the issue would be a lot clearer. I would still expect disagreements (particularly over whether the difference is significant).

 

[sweetchuck]

Prometheum_x:

Nothing material is intrinsically evil, so contraception cannot be evil because of its material components.

That’s quite false. Sure, matter, in and of itself, it is not evil. But in probably almost every use, it is. That’s like saying chemical weapons are not evil. That’s like saying that abortion machines are not evil because nothing material is intrinsically evil. Sure, it’s just matter, and matter is not evil, but in its every use it effects evil. It effects spiritual death. It’s essentially a negative sacrament. The same holds true for contraception. It effects spiritual death, obstructs the sacramental grace that is given to the couple throughout the course of their marriage, and prevents creation.

Prometheum_x:

Both contraception and NFP are methods for achieving a goal: no children for any given length of time.

The problem with contraception cannot be that it allows spouses to avoid fertility, for it is in that regard identical with NFP.

Thus, if there is a problem with contraception, it must be the manner in which it accomplishes the goal…

You are right there. You see, cheddarsox, the end is the same - no children (with the exception of some birth-control pills which actually murder the child). But the means is different. The MEANS is what makes it evil. Natural Family Planning could be used for an evil end. If the couple uses it for their own selfishness, for their own material wealth or their careers, then it would turn into an evil means. That’s why the “openness” I talked about was so necessary.

Sex during the woman’s cycle in the time in which she is not fertile is in line with the natural order. God created the system that way. There’s nothing wrong with that. But NEVER having sex during fertility periods does not add members to the mystical body of Christ and is probably sinful. Christian married couples have a duty to have children to add to this mystical body, and I think our grandparents and greatgrandparents understood this much better than our generations do.

 

[Liberian]

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.

David,

Let me try to clear something up: it is not intrinsically sinful to take birth control pills. It is sinful to have sexual relations while on a regimen of birth control pills when the purpose of the pills is to prevent conception. That is specifically where the sin is.

The use of a “morning after” pill, even by a victim of rape, is also sinful when there is a chance that conception has occurred. (If there isn’t a chance that conception has occurred, I don’t understand the reason for taking such a pill.) This is not a case of contraception, though; it goes against the commandment against murder. And while I must ask pardon for strong language, I am hard pressed to see how killing one’s child is an appropriate response to a sexual assault.

Regarding your poll: I wish you had put in an option of “Won’t happen” because it won’t.

• Liberian

 

[someguy]

The way I see it the Church can’t accept contraception because then people would want an acceptance of gay relationships. From the articles I have read, the main argument against gay people is that the relationship is not open to procreation. If contraception was allowed this argument would collapse.
Thus, I seriously doubt contraception will ever be allowed.

 

[Catholic2003]

Ray_Scheel:

Claims that no teaching of the Church is infallible unless and untill backed up with an ex-cathedra statment to that effect have long been dismissed as straw-grasping heresy by the habit of those claims to de facto deny the doctrine of the general infalliability of the bishops, which is the ultimate undoingo f your original claim. Like it or not, the authority of the ordinary magisterium has been estabilised as infalliable, and there is no special exception available for dissenting theologians wishing to deviate from the ordinary magisterium on the issues of contraception and abortion.

From Jimmy Akin’s website entry on non-infallible teaching (bold added):

A reader writes:

Is there such a thing as non-infallible church teaching?
Yes. In fact, as Cardinal Dulles points out in his book The Splendor Of Faith, most of the Church’s teachings are proposed non-infallibly.

…

These facts indicate that it is not simply “okay” to dissent from non-infallible (but still authoritative) teachings of the Church.

As far as finding out what falls in the infallible category, I generally recomment getting a copy of Ludwig Ott’s FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DO[G]MA. Anything he lists with a theological note of sent. certa or above is probably infallible.

From A DISCUSSION OF INFALLIBILITY by Father John Trigilio on the EWTN website document library (bold added):

Next, is Ludwig Ott’s monumental work, “The Fundamentals of Dogma.” There, one can find the theological distinctions made between divinely revealed truths (DE FIDE) and those which are only theologically certain.

DE FIDE is the highest level of theological/doctrinal truth. They are INFALLIBLE statements by their very nature, like the Holy Trinity, The Real Presence, etc.

Next, are VERITATES CATHOLICAE (catholic truths) like the existence of God which can be known through reason alone.

Finally, there are four types of THEOLOGICAL OPINIONS:

1. SENTENTIA FIDEI PROXIMA (proximate to the Faith) like the Trinity can be known only through Revelation.

1. SENTENTIA CERTA (theologically certain) like Monogenism, i.e., that the human race came from one set of parents.

1. SENTENTIA COMMUNIA (common teaching) like the Church’s prohibition & proscription of artificial contraception.

1. SENTENTIA PROBABILIS (probable teaching) like the premise that the Virgin Mary died before being Assumed into Heaven.

So I guess that puts Jimmy Akin, Fr. John Trigilio, and Dr. Ludwig Ott on your list of “dissenting theologians.”

Well, I would choose to be on their side any day instead of the side of Fr. Hans Küng (one of the first theologians to claim that the Church’s teaching against contraception was infallible via the ordinary and universal magisterium).