tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post6315812304455516146..comments2024-03-21T00:15:48.886-07:00Comments on Philothea on Phire: Everything I Didn't Want to Know About Humanae VitaeJayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09927474235629912604noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-26234669197388637502013-03-15T15:16:38.530-07:002013-03-15T15:16:38.530-07:001. For more precise history of Majority/Minority r...1. For more precise history of Majority/Minority report, see:<br /><br />http://www.twotlj.org/Ford.html<br /><br />http://uffl.org/vol13/fehring03.pdf<br /><br />In 1969, Karol Wojtyla with his colleagues responded to the Majority report with this admirable critical analysis and summary of orthodox teaching of the Catholic church:<br />http://catholicpreaching.com/content/docs/Analecta.pdf<br /><br />2. "What doesn’t make perfect sense is the fact that all these Catholics who are using artificial contraception are committing a grave sin, and no one is trying to convince them of that fact."<br /><br />This simply is not true. See:<br />http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/natural-family-planning/catholic-teaching/<br /><br />And:<br />http://www.amazon.com/Preachable-Message-Dynamics-Natural-Planning/dp/0972225102<br /><br />See also the whole TOB movement; the immorality of contraception is always includen in the message.<br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14906353670604457052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1531497517644951122.post-89185622106908566882012-05-15T16:36:35.033-07:002012-05-15T16:36:35.033-07:00The problem with Humanae Vitae was that it was iss...The problem with Humanae Vitae was that it was issued at the precise wrong time in history. <br /><br />Traditional moral teaching, Natural Law, and Scripture were simply not going to hold water by 1968. Theologians and the laity were looking for more than ipse dixit "because we say so" and "because we've always done it that way". The new arguments were weak, but I doubt the old arguments would have worked either. They were still around and still didn't help.<br /><br />This may seem odd, but the birth control pill was a contraceptive that was heavily marketed to Catholics. Dr. John Rock was a devout Catholic who was sure the Church would change its policy. The idea was that it was not immoral because the hormones were mimicking a natural state. This is why pills have the "fake period", even though there is no medical reason for it--it was a marketing ploy to convince women, especially Catholics that it was natural. Many Catholics were shocked that the Pope thought otherwise. Pre-Vatican II Catholics may have known "the rules", but very few understood the reasoning behind them.<br /><br />After over 50 years, science now knows that the Pill is anything but natural and is indeed quite detrimental to women's health. Of course, it is still heavily marketed, but today we have the science to back the position that Pope Paul VI did not.<br /><br />Also, in 1968, there were no good Catholic alternatives to the pill. There were plenty of Catholic couples who did have serious reasons to avoid pregnancy, but the old Rhythm Method was of little help to them. Many in 1968 found that the Church's insistence on limiting couples to this ineffective option was cruel. <br /><br />What the world did not know was that at that very moment Dr. Konald Prem, Dr. Gerhard Doering, Drs. John and Lyn Billings and others were doing the research that would form the basis for modern NFP. Only a few years later, Catholics would have a method of avoiding pregnancy that was as effective as immoral means. Indeed, much of the current dissent on Humanae Vitae is stuck in the early 1960s and is completely ignorant of modern methods of NFP.<br /><br />Finally, the "new" argument has been fleshed out by the work of John Paul II. The Catholic Church now has a strong positive message of human sexuality and not just a series of "thou shalt nots". <br /><br />In 1968, Humanae Vitae was seen as arbitrary, cruel, and authoritarian by not only the secular world, but many in the Church--and for good reason. But time has only strengthened the encyclical and weakened the case against it. Modern science and theology can support Catholic teaching in ways that were not available to Paul VI. <br /><br />JDAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com