The Pope Who Gave Catholics "Natural" Birth Control
Some decades ago a Pope named "Paul" issued a controversial paper on what kind of birth control Catholic couples are allowed to practice. It's OK to limit the number of children a couple has, the Pope wrote. It's just that limiting the number of children by using a condom is a grave sin but limiting children by not having sex during the woman's maximum time of fertility is not a sin. A paper recently discussed this peculiar reasoning.
There is no logical reason to declare one method of birth control sin and another not sin. Either both are sins or neither is a sin.
Surely we can all agree that before there was human understanding of the female fertility cycle humans did not know how to limit the number of pregnancies. They followed there natural urge to have sex. So called "natural law" would be to follow urges that nature provided humans. The ultimate "natural law" would be no effort whatsoever to avoid pregnancy.
The link explains that this Pope did not issue his ruling that condoms were a grave sin through his Cardinals. He issued it himself. He did consult with some others but the decree was his and his alone. There is no conclusion one can make other than that decision was that Pope's opinion and nothing more.
We all know that today there are a variety of sophisticated methods of birth control. Nearly all Catholic women use them. Family size among Catholics has declined. It's apparent Catholics is the pews see through this facade.
The role of women in both decisions about family size and about the economic security of families now dwarfs what it was when the rule about contraception was written. A church which wants to be relevant should change its teaching.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html
ReplyDeleteConsequences of Artificial Methods
17. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.
Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.
Limits to Man's Power
Consequently, unless we are willing that the responsibility of procreating life should be left to the arbitrary decision of men, we must accept that there are certain limits, beyond which it is wrong to go, to the power of man over his own body and its natural functions—limits, let it be said, which no one, whether as a private individual or as a public authority, can lawfully exceed. These limits are expressly imposed because of the reverence due to the whole human organism and its natural functions, in the light of the principles We stated earlier, and in accordance with a correct understanding of the "principle of totality" enunciated by Our predecessor Pope Pius XII. (21)
I tend to favor humans collaborating with each other and deciding what practices best serve the needs of society. The Church over estimates the importance of what is in the interests of the clergy in charge. That is where "natural birth control" came from. It did not come from those in the pews.
DeleteThe consequences of the use of artificial contraception still remain and speak louder for themselves.
Delete"a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection"
Delete... backed up by exactly zero evidence.
The difference between artificial contraceptives and abstinence requires rational thought. We have 7 kids as we are both blessed and open to life. Kids are great, especially the unborn ones.
ReplyDeleteyeah kids are super great when they're only hypothetical, aren't they?
DeleteThose hypothetical kids are the ones you like to chop up and suck out of the womb. Why do that if they aren't real, just "hypothetical"?
DeleteI'm not sure why I keep getting sucked into John's "Freethinker" blog posts and why I feel I must reply and defend Christianity to someone who has no interest in hearing the other side. It is not a debate, for his mind is already made up. He launches a constant attack on something (Christianity and/or religion in general) just to get people worked up, with no intention of "thinking" about things from our perspective. It's become obvious to me (I'm slow), but, the reason the Forum continues to post his "Freethinking" hand grenades is strictly for clicks...Clickbait. Look, I'm still responding to something he posted 3-4 days ago.....I'm done, out.
DeleteAtheism cheapens everything it touches, look at the results of communism (Joseph Stalin) the most powerful atheism on earth.
ReplyDeleteI'm still trying to figure out why you care...
ReplyDeleteMichael @ 8:29 "I'm still trying to figure out why you care.."
DeleteI assume that is directed toward me. Why do I discuss these issues? Because religious operatives want to tell us, including gay friends and women in my life, whether they can marry and pass laws about what happens to women's bodies. If religion did not want to enter our laws and subsequently run our lives I would not bother to blog. I don't care or mind if others are religious.
Jon has no regard for unborn lives, male or female. He wants homosexuals to engage in marriage, a religious act not to be confused with a civil contract. He wants all those with a belief in God to be wiped off the earth. But he's not a bigot...
DeleteThis "religious operative" is only interested in the societal good, e.g. protecting the weak and defenseless, protecting social structures which honor and uplift the human spirit, etc.
DeleteNeither gender has the right to kill a defenseless, innocent human being. Couching your bloodlust as a woman's right to protect her body is indefensible.
Marriage, likewise, is a societal construct and a sacrament. For homosexuals wishing to mimic this act I have to ask why. Do they think societal acceptance and approval will flow from assaulting marriage? Are not children at least to be given consideration in society? With Jon, the only important people are those that have zero consideration for children.
Matt Noah as in Noah's Ark? That's explains a lot. Whoops! Time for my birth control pill. Gotta go.
ReplyDeleteIf people didn't respond, maybe he would just fade away.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, 9:24 "If people didn't respond, maybe he would just fade away."
DeleteI'm grateful to people who stop by and comment, good or bad. Someday I will stop this blog, that's for sure. But, I've been doing it for over seven years with over 1.2 million views. The new platform and many new and different readers makes it seem like I'm just starting. I won't be fading away soon. Thanks for the comment. :)
Your position has major integrity issues. Natural law is not the urge to have sex - lol. The premise of natural law is if you want things to prosper you have to act in accord with their nature. That's why you don't pour gasoline on your plants because its not in accord with the nature of a plant. Natural law conclude two basic purposes for sex: bonding and having babies. Contraception excludes the procreative element of the way in which men and women love. So that part, a part meant to belong to the act is excluded. Without the pro-creative element you might be bonding but essentially the act is saying I love you but I don't love your fertility.
ReplyDeleteYou're correct that contraception and NFP can have the same end, i.e. to not get pregnant. However, the difference resides in the means to accomplish that end - contraception is hostile to fertility while NFP is not.
You're all upset about a misconstrued "opinion" of Pope Paul VI but then don't hesitate to give your own opinion about the Church's social teaching. Let's make no mistake you are infallible - because you're always right.
Here's an opinion - atheists would be more relevant if they didn't have to rely on deception and arrogant pride.
As an atheist maybe you should just concentrate on believing in nothing and the let Catholics worry about being Catholic.
Anonymous 11:08 "Natural law is not the urge to have sex...you have to act in accord with their nature.."
DeleteThis is where Catholics get off the track. They refer to their religious dogma as "natural law" and then talk of behavior and events that are not part of nature or part of the nature of the human being. The desire to have sex is nature's trait. Without it we would not reproduce and humans would no longer exist. Not following this urge is to not behave as nature intended. This is hard for some branches of Christianity because sex in general, and certainly sex for pleasure, is a sin. That is, to behave as nature intended is to sin.
"As an atheist...concentrate of believing in nothing and let Catholics worry about being Catholic."
Thank you for that suggestion. I will return the favor by suggesting that Catholics should worry about being Catholic and let those who understand nature understand nature.
Zing.
DeleteGood Lord are you ever dumb. Natural law is not a dogma; it is a philosophical principle. You don't need religion to be a proponent of natural law. The main purpose of sex, according to natural law is two-fold: babies and bonding. The fact that sex is pleasurable is a motive or consequence (what you call a "trait") of the action just like eating or sleeping. The fact that eating is pleasurable is not its main purpose which is to put food in our body for strength. Sleeping is pleasurable but the main purpose is to give our bodies rest so we have energy when we are awake.
DeleteYou contend that sterile sex for pleasure is a good and then pretend that reproduction is important - well which is it - one or the other or both or in your case whatever I want and nobody can tell me any different?
You falsely assert that Christianity is opposed to pleasure as a consequence of the marital embrace because you have to lie ... could it be your anthropology is that of the beasts?
The RCC claims to be the moral guardian of the faithful. I find it to be a facetious claim due to decades/centuries of the sexual abuse of children and now coming out in the news....sexual abuse of nuns, including abortions when impregnated. Such hypocrisy is down right dastardly.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/07/28/pretended-it-didnt-happen-nuns-report-abuse-by-priests.html
That's it? That's all you have? A Church has sinners?
DeleteThe RCC never claimed that the human element of the Church would be perfect. I mean look at Peter. If you're expecting perfection from human beings, no matter what the organization is, you will be disappointed. An organization of that size is bound to have a few criminals.
DeleteThe "abuse" thing is pretty much over and has been for some time. The per reviewed John Jay study has consistently demonstrated since 2002 an average of 6 credible allegations a year against 50,000 clergy - if you need some help with the math - that's about 6/10ths of 1%. Nobody comes close to that including teachers who like to have sex with their high school students.
Nobody does more on any given day to educate people, feed the poor, tend to they dying than the RCC - criminals and all. They certainly do more than whinny atheists who insist on perfection from the world in which they live and everybody in it while apparently unaware of their own self imposed neurosis