Have Your Say 

Recent Comments

1. I recommend that would-be commentators read the full story before commenting on the abstract.
   The comments attached to the full story are almost universally intelligent, relevant, perceptive and sometimes even quite amusing.
   Theological discussion at depth is alive and well in the USA.

   Posted By: Joe

2. From what I can discern from a brief examination of this article, four theologians are consulted: Maguire, Fullam, Cloutier and Rubio.
   Those who most oppose the US Bishops in their protest are those who reject Church teaching on contraception: Maguire and Fullam. Surprise, anyone?

   Posted By: HH

3. Hugh Henry: From your published track record on CathNews, it is clear that you are not surprised.
   You night recall that in the lead up to Humanae Vitae, Pope John XXIII set up a commission to review the issue of birth control in the Catholic tradition.
   That body was greatly expanded by Paul VI to included cardinals and other bishops, eminent moral theologians and laity of both sexes.
   The majority - 65 members - reported contrary to the minority (about 7) - that Casti Conubii of 1930 was not infallible in its teaching authority, that birth control was not intrinsically evil, and that even artificial birth control was not morally discontinuous with the Catholic tradition.
   It seems that the majority read both the Sensus Fidei and the Sensus Fidelium as 98% of Catholics have not received or accepted Humanae Vitae as infallible and have formed their consciences accordingly.
   What the Magisterium if now faced with is the doctrinal and pastoral challenge of accepting/dealing with this mass non reception of a teaching which has effectively eroded its own moral authority and almost terminally alienated the vast majority of Catholics.

   Posted By: David Timbs

4. It seems that theologians or activists from what is commonly termed the 'left' regarding Church issues, want to include such topics as food production and war etc, within those 'hot-button' subjects which Catholicism will not compromise on. These subjects while important in themselves, are not on the same plain as abortion or contraception in relation to non-negotiable positions. One can legitimately differ from another, e.g. in relation to the application of the 'just war' doctrine in certain situations, but it is never right to justify abortion.
   David, the Sensus Fidelium or the Vox Populi cannot be used to justify practices which are not morally acceptable.
   Jesus did not formulate moral positions on the basis of straw polls. Humanae Vitae was and is still a very perspicacious document, foreteling the damage that the 'contraceptive culture' would caused in relation to the breakdown of sexual mores and the objectivization of women across the Western world.
   The dissent which greeted the release of this great encyclical was partially due to a failure of Church personnel to properly catechize their flocks in relation to the biblical basis for it. Also the 'sexual revolution' was in full swing and traditional values were under severe attack at the time in the late 60's.

   Posted By: Gerry McIvor

5. Gerry: One of the reasons that the issue of contraception is so contentious is that for most everyday, good willed catholics it is not a major world altering thing.
   Ordinary loving couples get on with their lives, making love, making babies and then stopping making babies when they feel it would be better for the family they have.
   It is a mature, loving and considered decision for most folk and they are quite comfortable with the choices they make.
   They are not interested in the all-male celibate hierarchy having a say in their personal lives.
   Most of us are far more concerned about the plight of the poor and marginalised. We are concerned about world peace and respectful dialogue with other faiths.
   It is time to just stop this focus on all things sexual for a while and start to worry about things that can be changed because for most of us the contraceptive issue is dead and buried.

   Posted By: Marjorie

6. But ordinary couples in our society are not having babies, Marjorie. That's why our populations are drastically declining and many western countries face demographic winter.
   Experts say there won't be any Italians from the current generation in a couple of centuries time. Or Germans, or French. And Anglo-Celt Australia is not far behind.
   That may be very well for some, but before it happens we're going to face in about 50 years or so an inverted pyramid wherein each young person born will be materially supporting an ever- growing number of old people unable to provide for themselves, and the result will be economic misery for all.
   So if you really are worried about alleviating poverty, you might consider at some stage that of our own descendents.
   Of course, by then, Western society's current flirtation with euthanasia might well have matured into full-blown, mandatory execution of all the very old and infirm who can't look after themselves - 'lives unworthy of life'.
   This is the direct consequence of the 'mature' decision modern couples are making not to be open to life, via contraception (and abortion): the turn toward demographic winter commenced for most of these countries in the early 1960's, immediately after the Pill became available.

   Posted By: HH

7. HH: I see that you are on the economic 'doom and gloom' bandwagon. Let's stop for a moment and think of the non-Europeans - the poor of Third World countries who can't even conceive of state welfare in old age. I have witnessed first-hand the pain of parents who have many children and lose 40% of them in infancy as they have no access to primary health care. I have witnessed first-hand women severely beaten because, using the Billings Method, a wife has told her husband that sex is not 'safe' today. So you will perhaps understand why I am not overly conccerned about my western home comforts in retirement.
   As Catholics, we also need to be aware of all the government subsidies that are handed over to large families - tax benefits, lump sums on delivery, reduced school fees (in some caes no school fees after child no 4 - other parents are subsidising this). The extra call on child care, not to mention health care.
   Howver, HH, as a woman, I can only ask you to be mindful of the toll pregancy and infant care takes on a woman's body. We are not baby factories. We are entitled to some quality of life.
   Perhaps you, as a man, would agree to abstain from sexual activity for 3 years after the birth of a child in order to let the mother and child recover and have the care they need. After all, celibacy is highly prized in the church and I'm sure God would support all our good Catholic men through this period.

   Posted By: Marjorie

8. Timely and sobering considerations, HH, that deserve broader airing - especially among those who prefer the mentality of corporate contraceptive manufacturers to moral reason and its expression in Catholic teaching.

   Posted By: John

9. I'm not a philosopher or a theologian, but I am left thinking that the logic that ultimately appeals to those who hold that Casti connubii and Humanae vitae hold no sway can be reduced to 'if it feels good, it must be right'.

   Posted By: Peter in Canberra

10. Marjorie: The poverty in the third world is not due to overpopulation. It is due to underproduction. Both the Church and economic expertise attest that human beings are, intrinsically, incredibly productive, if they're just allowed to live and look after themselves.
    Consider a place like Hong Kong during the past 60 years – one of most densely populated spots on the planet, stuck on a rocky harbour with little or no resources or arable land.
    Yet, beginning in poverty in the 1950's, Hong Kong sailed past resource-rich Australia in per capita GDP terms in the mid 1990's.
    Why? Not because of foreign aid (HK had none), but minimal government intervention, low taxes, private property and free trade. Instead of putting about the Albigensian heresy that having more babies is evil, we should be targeting oppressive Third World regimes with this empirically-based advice: They should unleash the productive capacities of their citizens by respecting the right of each person to keep most of what he/she creates for herself and her family, and trade as she wishes.
    Wife-bashing because of NFP (or any other reason), though appalling, doesn't prove that contraception is moral, any more than it justifies abortion or infanticide.
    

    Posted By: HH

11. Marjorie: You would support imposing birth control on poor countries and depriving them of their most precious resource - their children?
    As one observer has remarked: Under imperialism we took their bread; now steal their future.

    Posted By: John

12. DT: We're not persuaded by your numbers. The fact that most Catholics are of one mind re some matter of faith or morals doesn't establish the truth of their position. Take contraception. Its moral liceity was rejected not just by most Catholics, but by most Christians and all of their teaching authorities until the end of the 19th centry. And had been since their respective foundations. So, had you been invoking statistics on this issue at that time according to your 'reception' theory, then the moral impermissibility of contraception as Church teaching would have been solidly established at that point. Contraception: Immoral in 1868, moral in 1968? Catholic doctrines develop. But they don't flip flop. Not in the Church I belong to, anyway. If they did, I'd be outta there.

    Posted By: HH

13. HH: Yet the Vatican allowed women religious in the Belgian Congo to use contraception becasue of the very high risk of rape.
    Doesn't seem to me to be absolutely immoral.

    Posted By: Francis

14. I came across this quote: 'Over the pope as expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there stands one's own conscience which must be obeyed before all else, even if necessary against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even the official church, also establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism.' (Josef Ratzinger, Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, 1967)

    Posted By: Francis

15. Francis: 'Contraception' can only take place in reference to voluntary acts of intercourse - ie, acts which are human acts of both parties.
    In rape, one of the parties is involuntary.
    So long as they are not abortifacient in nature, measures taken to stem the effects of rape, including conception, are permissible - they are not acts of contraception per se.
    Ratzinger's comment on conscience is uncontroversial and a restatement of tradition: it's a mortal sin to violate one's conscience on grave matters, no matter how erroneous it may be.
    This is irrelevant to the discussion about the morality of contraception. It applies to every moral decision we make.
    Thus, if in perfectly good conscience I felt I was solemnly bound to slay my innocent next door neighbour, it would be a mortal sin for me to disobey that edict.
    That truth doesn't mean we need to question the absolute prohibition against the direct killing of the innocent.
    Neither does the fact, that some in 'good conscience' in the matter practice contraception, prove contraception is moral.
    No one except those totally free of all sin and imperfections has a conscience that is perfectly well formed.
    So even though we must ultimately trust to our consciences we know that because of personal sin they're bound to be imperfect fonts of truth.
    We won't be held to account for that particular sin. But we will be held to account for any (unrepented) sins that led to the erroneous judgement.

    Posted By: HH

16. HH: Thanks for ackowledging there are exceptions.
    So many seem to write as though contraception is a mortal sin, full stop, in every situation.
    Now for some other exceptions: where one's conscience does not allow one's wife to endure any more dangerous pregnancies and where she has been advised not to fall pregnant again; where one of a couple is not RC etc.
    So, if it's a mortal sin to violate one's conscience on grave matters, no matter how erroneous it may be, as you write, then those whose consciences dictate may use contraception. Otherwise, as you write, they would be in mortal sin.

    Posted By: Francis

17. Contraception = Mortal Sin
    Unrepentant Mortal Sin + Death = Eternal Damnation.
    No second chance, no end to the suffering, just endless torment.
    To be Catholic is to follow all the teaching of the Catholic Church.

    Posted By: Joe

18. Francis: You've misunderstood my point. All acts of contraception are wrong.
    The Congo nuns were protecting themselves against rape, which is not an act of sexual intercourse as it's not voluntary on their part. So they weren't engaging in contraception.
    You must always follow your conscience.
    But if that conscience is erroneous and you were for any reason morally responsible for that error then you are responsible for the evil of the act.
    Think about a drunk driver, who's aware he's drunk, but doing his best in the circumstances to keep on the road, but running over someone nevertheless.
    He's culpable, not because he deliberately tried to run them over, but because he earlier chose to drive while drunk.

    Posted By: HH

19. HH: You write 'all acts of contraception are wrong'.
    You then seem to make an exception, viz, except where a woman is protecting herself against rape which as you write 'is not an act of sexual intercourse'.
    That's news to me.
    Of course rape is an act of sexual intercourse.
    If all acts of contraception are wrong, then contraception to prevent pregnancy after being raped is wrong too.
    Does Humanae Vitae allow this exception?
    Why should contraception to prevent pregnancy after being raped be OK when contraception to prevent another dangerous pregnancy be morally wrong. Are you advising it is OK for women to use contraception because of the fear they might be raped?
    Of course, the nuns were engaging in contraception in that contraception, surely, means 'against conception'. Why, otherwise, would the nuns be permitted to use contraception?
    You then state that we must always follow our conscience.
    If a married couple chooses, according to their conscience, to use contarception then, you are saying, they must follow their conscience.
    Your final para is mysterious.

    Posted By: Francis

20. Joe: I was under the impression that to be catholic was to follow first and foremost the teachings of Jesus.
    Jesus was very specific about not laying heavy burdens on the shoulders of men and women.
    My main point was that women have the right to not be pregnant if they so choose. It is their bodies that have to go through it. I was not talking per se about artificial contraception but responding to HH who seemed to think women should just have as many children as God gives them and that should be as many as possible.
    Did you notice that both HH and you moved straight into the sin of it all.
    I did offer a way that men could assist in helping women to spread their pregnancies in a way most acceptable to the church.
    Neither of you commented on that.
    By the way - Jesus said that perfect love casts out all fear.
    I am not a Catholic who lives by fear, so your dire warnings fall on deaf ears.

    Posted By: Marjorie

21. Francis: 'those actions are properly called human which proceed from a deliberate will.' (St Thomas).
    But in rape, the victim is not deliberately willing the act of the perpetrator. Therefore the act of the victim is not in the crucial moral sense a ‘human act’ (actus humanus) of sexual intercourse on her part, however much in physically describable terms it may seem to resemble one. Similarly, a sleepwalker is not engaging in the 'human act' of walking, however much it may appear to be the case to the unsuspecting observer.
    But the rule against contraception applies to contraception as a human act - that is, one in which a person freely chooses 1) to engage in a sexual act and also freely chooses 2) to deliberately suppress the procreative consequences of that act. If your definition held, then someone who freely engaged in intercourse knowing that a medication they were taking had contraceptive side-effects they did not intend, would also be engaging, morally speaking, in contraception. But that's not the case, as you are no doubt aware.
    Everyone must follow their conscience. As I've said before: even if their conscience tells them to blow up the world. Nothing at all follows from this about the moral permissibility (or not) of blowing up the world. Ditto re contraception. This is standard moral theology.
    

    Posted By: HH

22. HH: Site some authorities, please. You still contradict yourself.

    Posted By: Francis

23. Sure, Francis: 1. On the requirement that any act, including a conjugal act involving contraception, be a "human" act before it can be evaluated as good or evil, see the Catechism (CCC), n. 1749.
    2. On the permissibility of medication which indirectly results in infertility, and so not counting as deliberate contraception, the latter which is condemned absolutely in Humanae vitae para. 14, see HV, 15. See also CCC n. 1737 re. double effect.
    3. On the point about the binding authority of conscience, even if (de facto) erroneous, and the relationship between an erroneous conscience and possible culpability, see CCC n. 1790-1793.
    Please state the perceived contradiction.

    Posted By: HH

24. HH: Sorry, but your contradictions remain; re-read your e-mails.
    Your citations from the Catechism are smoke-screens although, I agree, if a couple chooses, acting on their conscience, to use contraception then they are not culpable. On that we agree.
    Finally, there is no guarantee that Christ must agree with each and every decision of the bishops nor with each and every judgement of the pope.

    Posted By: Francis

25. Francis: I understand you still perceive contradictions in my posts.
    It seems you still are unable to acknowledge important theological concepts: eg, the traditional distinction, even manifest in secular jurisprudence, between culpability for acting against one's conscience, and culpability for a wrongful act which, though in accord with an erroneous conscience, is one in which the actor is culpable, wholly or partly, for that error itself.
    You will indeed continue to perceive contradictions in my posts here as long as you fail to take into account this basic point.
    I've given you a magisterial authority and pointed out the necessary distinctions.
    The rest is up to you.

    Posted By: HH

26. HH: Re-read your emails and you will find that you are self-contradictory and you do not answer my points raised.
    For example, you stated that all acts of contraception are wrong except for contraception to ward off pregnancy following rape. Therefor, all acts of contraception are not wrong.
    You stated that rape is not an act of intercourse which is nonsense. Of course it is an act of intercourse. How could it not be an act of intercourse?
    You wrote that it's a mortal sin to violate one's conscience on grave matters, no matter how erroneous it may be and, you must always follow your conscience but then you seem to deny this to those who, in good conscience, use contraception.
    Your statement that the Belgian nuns were not engaging in contraception by using the pill is extraordinary and quite silly. They were acting so as not to conceive.

    Posted By: Francis

• » Advertise in CathNews

Email to Friend Please fill out the following details (fields marked with a * are mandatory):
Send To Email Address*:
Send To Name *:
Sent By Email Address*:
Sent By Name *:
Text to include in email:
Captcha validation:	please enter the code above:

^ Page Top

Comment on this article

More from this section

1. John XXIII's personal secretary reflects on Vatican II

   Vatican Insider interviews Archbishop Loris Capovilla, personal secretary to John XXIII, about the meaning and legacy of the Second Vatican Council.

2. Jesus returned to Capernaum after some days

   Mark 2:1-12

   When Jesus returned to Capernaum after some days, it was reported that he was at home. ²So many gathered around that there was no longer room for them, not even in front of the door; and he was speaking the word to them. ³

3. The meaning of Lent

    

   Ash Wednesday marks the beginning of Lent, and the beginning of 40 days of prayer, penance and almsgiving, writes Bishop David Walker, of Broken Bay. In preparation for the greatest period in our liturgical calendar – Easter – he considers the symbols of Ash Wednesday and their timeless meaning.

    

     

    

    

4. Valentines, Lourdes and sacred music

   The Church plays cupid for St Valentine's Day, the Australian ordinariate is given a name, this year's Our Lady of Lourdes procession sets a record, and musicians head for churches (pictured) to perform their music.

5. Vatican rejects Iran, Japan abuse vow and new witch trial

   The Vatican says no Papal trip is planned to Iran, an American bishop says the right to conscience must be protected by law, the Church in Japan vows to fight sexual abuse, and a German post office witch (pictured) is to get a new trial after 400 years.