Since Paul vi said you couldn’t in humanae vitae and that was after vii, just curious
Humane Vitae wasn’t the first time that was taught, there had been papal condemnation of birth control for decades by that point. And beyond that, even if there hadn’t been explicit papal condemnation of birth control, there are other theological and natural law arguments to be made against it, from the tradition and from reason.
Not even the first encyclical in 20th century that condemned birth control.
Pius XI issued Casti Connubii in 1930.
Didn’t ALL Christian religions condemn artificial birth control up until a certain time? Then after that the Catholic Church was the only one who stuck to that condemnation.
Sorry, I thought there was a grey area regarding the pill itself.
You are correct. In 1930, the Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Church voted to allow for artificial methods of regulating births:
Where there is a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipleship and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception-control for motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.
From there, most Christian denominations followed suit, save the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
No, it’s always been pretty clear that it was against natural law and the moral tradition of the Church. If you read Humanae Vitae, you’ll see that Pope Paul points to these antecedents in his teaching. Papal Encyclicals aren’t meant to be new teaching fashioned out of whole cloth, but are rather teaching something in continuity with what has been taught before.
It’s not the pill itself that’s the problem. Pills of any kind are things, they are morally neutral, they are neither good nor bad of themselves. It’s in how they’re used. Think of radioactive material. I can put radioactive material into a piece of medical machinery, and it can destroy tumors. I can also put radioactive material into a piece of military machinery (aka “bomb”) and it can destroy Hiroshima. The radioactive material is neither good nor bad, but what is done with it is. So hormonal pills are neither good nor bad, it’s all in how and why they’re being used. If they’re being used for various therapeutic applications, this is obviously morally acceptable (though some would argue medically imprudent). But if they’re being used to alter the fundamental order of the human body and its reproductive system so that the marital act is no longer ordered toward life, then this is morally unacceptable.
Papal encyclicals and other magisterial decrees don’t come out to “make rules” or “change rules” with regards to morality. Morality isn’t just about rules–if there are moral rules, they point beyond themselves, and are then formulations of how one should act so as to live a properly ordered life. The ordering of life is what the rules aim at, and in the case of Christian morality, we say it is meant to be a life ordered toward union with God, accomplished by living out our God-given human dignity, which comes from being made in his image.
Yeah…I don’t think one can switch to sedevacantism in order to use birth control.
No, the sedevacantists would recognize that the use of contraception is intrinsically immoral and thus would recognize that they couldn’t use it.
A lot of those types think sexual contact for any reason other than to try for a pregnancy is a grave sin, and both parties have to do their best to not enjoy it.
There must be a Woody Allen-style joke in that.
“My marriage is not going well, rabbi.”
“And in the bedroom, how are things?”
“My wife and I make love and never enjoy it.”
“In that case, for you I have no advice.”
It has been my observation that sedevacantists do not accept any pope after Pope Pius XII. Therefore they believe that even natural family planning is sinful since it was condemned in Casti Canubi.
No? Paul’s position is the same orthodox one always held by the Church.
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.