L
loumeland
Guest
This is a question that has been a source of distress for a long time, and I’m going to be straightforward about it.
Why have most Catholics (several sources say at least 80-90%) disregarded what is, as far as I know, the official church teaching on contraception, which is that every sexual act within the bounds of marriage must be ordered toward procreation?
This has to be separated from the infallible teaching that part of the very definition marriage is to be open to procreating new life. I do not believe this is an issue of contention. Also, I am strictly referring to non-abortifacent artificial contraception, as I know several people like to lump this issue with abortion.
However, Humanae Vitae exists. Would this encyclical, as prophetic as it might be, be considered a *misformulation *of true church doctrine? Is the fact that this single issue has created a huge gap between the ecclesia discens (those of us who are not ordained) and the ecclesia docens (the teaching ones) speak to the fact that this is an issue that needs to be re-formulated and possibly reconsidered in light of scientific knowledge, modern realities, and even environmental factors (ie. Laudato Si speaks to this)? Could this possibly be, as a Catholic editor of the America Magazine puts it, another “Galileo affair”?
I conclude my opening post with the words of Pope Paul VI: “May the lively debate aroused by our encyclical lead to a better knowledge of Gods will.”
Why have most Catholics (several sources say at least 80-90%) disregarded what is, as far as I know, the official church teaching on contraception, which is that every sexual act within the bounds of marriage must be ordered toward procreation?
This has to be separated from the infallible teaching that part of the very definition marriage is to be open to procreating new life. I do not believe this is an issue of contention. Also, I am strictly referring to non-abortifacent artificial contraception, as I know several people like to lump this issue with abortion.
However, Humanae Vitae exists. Would this encyclical, as prophetic as it might be, be considered a *misformulation *of true church doctrine? Is the fact that this single issue has created a huge gap between the ecclesia discens (those of us who are not ordained) and the ecclesia docens (the teaching ones) speak to the fact that this is an issue that needs to be re-formulated and possibly reconsidered in light of scientific knowledge, modern realities, and even environmental factors (ie. Laudato Si speaks to this)? Could this possibly be, as a Catholic editor of the America Magazine puts it, another “Galileo affair”?
I conclude my opening post with the words of Pope Paul VI: “May the lively debate aroused by our encyclical lead to a better knowledge of Gods will.”