Why do most people ignore the Church's teaching on contraception?

  • Thread starter Thread starter loumeland
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thorolfr #1117
Dum Diversas actually authorized the Portuguese monarchy, not the Spanish one
Click to expand...
Whether Spain only or Spain and Portugal is immaterial. Further, there is no teaching of the Church here – as though we have dogma or doctrine to the whole Church on faith or morals – a truth all should know by now.

We have seen categorically the reality of the Church’s fight against slavery, with emancipated slaves becoming Popes in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, and we know that the Muslims have always tried to destroy Christian civilization.

So this analysis is worth noting.
Is Dum Diversas real?
What we need to understand here is the context. This bull was written at a time of severe Muslim persecution of Christendom - Byzantine/Constantinople was under threat of attack and takeover by Muslims. In fact it was written just one year before the Muslims defeated Christian Byzantine (100-200K invaders against a mere 8,000 or so defenders). To give a context let me say that the Muslim invaders looted, pillaged and slaughtered Christians for a number of days before giving the few hiding survivors terms for their subjugation and homage if they surrendered as vassals to Islam.

The call by Pope Nicholas V (who authored this bull) was to rally Christendom to come to the aid of its members and confront Islam (the Saracens and pagan mercenaries they gained by conquering W. African pagan countries) head on. But he failed to get the European Kings to help and that is why Byzantine fell. This bull was directed to the Spanish only and was an authorization to engage the conquering Muslims and make war with them to stop their encroachment and aggression and conversion of Pagan Africa into homage by providing a quota of men of war - mercenaries . It was a time of war and at this time the Church had a definate voice of influence in government secular affairs and had to assert itself to defend innocent lives being slaughtered by the Muslim hordes. The pope uses the language and emotion of the day. Christians were terrorized by what looked like Satan himself waging war against Christendom. So the pope authorized the taking of prisoners of war and their enslavement/incarceration as a life sentence for crimes against Christendom. This is a mercy since the war convention at the time was to kill enemies due to the high cost of maintaining them and guarding or else holding the noble ones (knights/lords) as hostage for payment from their Christian families.

This bull was not a general edict to enslave people willy-nilly. It was no different than giving a life sentence to criminals with hard labor to pay back society as we still do to this very day here in the USA.

Bottom Line - *Dum Diversas *was a real papal bull but it in no way is a general endorsement of slavery. It is simply an authorization to the Spanish monarchy to engage the aggressor enemy of Christians in a “just war” and to take any survivors as prisoners and incarcerate them for life for their crimes against Christianity. It was all issued at a time when the Church was trying hard to rally Christendom out of its apathy to help defend our eastern Christian brothers from being defeated.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=418725
 
Rau said:
Of course teachings are not all “fulsome” - and such is never claimed by the Church. The only claim is not to teach error. What is taught as evil is not subsequently taught as good, snd what is taught as good is not later taught as evil.
Click to expand...
Well, I agree with your first point, but I am not sure that history supports your second.
 
It is my contention that the recent guideline that every marital act is to be “open to procreation” is not Church Teaching itself but rather an interpretation of Church teaching.
 
loumeland said:
It is my contention that the recent guideline that every marital act is to be “open to procreation” is not Church Teaching itself but rather an interpretation of Church teaching.
Click to expand...
First, it’s not “open to procreation”. It’s “ordered towards procreation”, which means the whole Tab A in Slot B thing.

Curious, what Church teaching is being interpreted here?
 
PaulinVA said:
First, it’s not “open to procreation”. It’s “ordered towards procreation”, which means the whole Tab A in Slot B thing.

Curious, what Church teaching is being interpreted here?
Click to expand...
An interpretation of the Church’s centuries-old teaching that “the matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.” (CCC 1601).
 
loumeland said:
An interpretation of the Church’s centuries-old teaching that “the matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.” (CCC 1601).
Click to expand...
But rather more than that is taught.

What you term as “a recent guideline” is only recent in so far as the precise language is concerned. The wrongs of contraceptive scts have also been taught for a very long time.
 
Rau said:
But rather more than that is taught.

What you term as “a recent guideline” is only recent in so far as the precise language is concerned. The wrongs of contraceptive scts have also been taught for a very long time.
Click to expand...
For the sake of debate, please provide a few examples of this.
 
Rico_S said:
I gotta say…that’s pretty weak.
Click to expand...
It is… for instance, let’s take: “Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted” (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).

This does not take into account modern understandings of biology. Technically, lots of “seed” is “wasted” in every sexual act, even if they are “ordered TOWARD procreation” (tab A into slot B). Also, there’s involuntary stuff, infertility, menopause, and the list goes on and on. This belief arose mainly due to an understanding of “seed” as containing little humans.

We shouldn’t be so quick to add this to our deposit of faith…
 
loumeland said:
We shouldn’t be so quick to add this to our deposit of faith…
Click to expand...
So quick? The entire Christisn world held contraception to be wrong from the beginning till 1930. All that is new is the available means.

It already resides in the deposit of faith and is not changeable.
 
Rico_S said:
I gotta say…that’s pretty weak.
Click to expand...
The fact of the continuity of teaching remains as it is - I didn’t go to original source, just referenced what was close at hand, as loumeland seemed to hold to a very narrow view about the basis of the teaching - as some misinterpretation… Multiple popes have taught unambiguously in relatively recent times. Do you find this particular recap of the teaching weak, or the teaching itself. Some would say the case for the Assumption of Mary is weak.
 
loumeland said:
It is… for instance, let’s take: “Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted” (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).

This does not take into account modern understandings of biology. Technically, lots of “seed” is “wasted” in every sexual act, even if they are “ordered TOWARD procreation” (tab A into slot B). Also, there’s involuntary stuff, infertility, menopause, and the list goes on and on. This belief arose mainly due to an understanding of “seed” as containing little humans.

We shouldn’t be so quick to add this to our deposit of faith…
Click to expand...
You misunderstand the Church’s teaching on sexuality.

You are talking about biology.Biology is concerned with substances, actions, results. It’s concerned with where stuff goes, where it came from.
All very good. But

The Church talks about sexuality in the context of man’s God given human dignity. One of the reasons contraception is on the evil side of the moral equation is that it makes persons “objects”. Persons are not objects.
Sexuality is about mutual and complete giving of one person to another person. Contraception robs sexuality of that mutual and complete giving. If one does not give completely to another in the sexual act, then the other is objectified.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM
esp starting at sec 118
 
loumeland said:
It is… for instance, let’s take: “Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted” (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).

This does not take into account modern understandings of biology. Technically, lots of “seed” is “wasted” in every sexual act, even if they are “ordered TOWARD procreation” (tab A into slot B). Also, there’s involuntary stuff, infertility, menopause, and the list goes on and on. This belief arose mainly due to an understanding of “seed” as containing little humans.

We shouldn’t be so quick to add this to our deposit of faith…
Click to expand...
The Church addresses the morality of acts rather than the science of things. For example a lot of Catholics are dismissive of Pope Francis encyclical Laudato Si because how can the Church speak of scientific facts and theories. But if you read it with an alert conscience you see he is addressing the morality of human acts with regards to our environment. It’s not a treatise on whether man made global warming is a sin but how we regard the human consequences of climate change ie. the toleration of poverty in a world that’s more than capable of redressing it out of moral duty.

So in regard to contraception the Church teaching does not amount to “every sperm is sacred” (that’s a Monty Python caricature)…it’s about our moral responsibility for the creative act that is a communion of everything a couple are.
 
Rau said:
Do you find this particular recap of the teaching weak, or the teaching itself.
Click to expand...
Both. The claim is always made that this teaching has in fact been the teaching of the Church form the beginning…if what you have provided is an accurate recap of the strongest points proving this teaching is constant from the beginning, than the argument is really weak.
 
PaulinVA said:
You’re going to have to be a little more specific than just read TOB.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand how TOB, a theology developed by one of our most recent popes, offers much in support that the evil of contraception has been taught by the Church from the beginning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top