A Vatican Commision Found That Contraception is Not Intrinsically Evil

[Fish and Bread]

Not exactly breaking news, but I am not sure all Catholics are aware of this. A lot of time has been spent trying to, not so much cover it up, but just to leave it out of historical accounts of contraception and the Church when the subject is discussed:

Both sex abuse and spiritual abuse are really abuses of power and authority. An interesting indication of this is an incident from the discussions of the special commission set up by Pope John XXIII to study the question of birth control. The majority of its members at the start supported traditional Church teaching against artificial contraception. But they changed their minds in the course of their meetings, and in the end the almost unanimous conclusion was that contraception is not intrinsically evil. The Spanish theologian Fr Zalba could not accept this, and he burst out impatiently: ‘What becomes of the millions we have sent to hell if this teaching is not true?’ Courteously Patty Crawler (who with her husband was one of the first lay people invited to the committee) asked him: ‘Fr Zalba, do you really believe God has carried out all your orders?’

But she was up against a Church convinced that it had all the answers even before hearing the questions or looking at the facts. A Church that insisted so much on authority had no regard for the authority of the facts. The three thousand letters from Catholic married couples in eighteen countries describing their experience were totally ignored by Pope John’s successor, as was the recommendation of the special papal commission set up to study the case. The Vatican has not allowed this documentation to be published.

The four theologians holding on to the traditional teaching had to admit that they had no arguments to prove the majority wrong, except that to change the teaching would damage the authority of the Church. And so the encyclical Humanae Vitae came to be written and published.

Insisting on authority conveniently forgets the many dreadful things that were proclaimed for centuries as the ‘teaching of the Church,’ but which nobody could accept today. To take an example from living memory: Pius XI in an encyclical on Christian education (with the same level of authority as Humanae Vitae) solemnly declared: ‘co-education is against all Catholic principles. It is erroneous and pernicious, and is often based on a naturalism which denies original sin … Nature itself, which makes the two sexes different in organism, inclinations and attitudes, provides no argument for mixing them promiscuously, much less educating them together.’

Catholics naturally wonder how the thirty-seven-year interval between the two encyclicals (1931, 1968) allows us to treat one as a museum piece quietly forgotten and the other as a serious obligation in conscience. Is this not a further reminder that all doctrinal statements, like the Bible itself, are historically and culturally conditioned? No statement from the past is set in stone, and it would be difficult to prove that the Church never made a mistake. We are a mixture of saint and sinner, and this applies to the Church as institution as much as to its members individually.

Excerpted from: Facing up to Spiritual Abuse: Sean Fagan S.M.. Association of Catholic Priests (I bolded certain parts to call attention to them in the above quoted material)

And, yes, I did post this link in another thread, but it's a very lengthy article that addresses a ton of different subjects with the broad overview of spiritual abuse, and I doubt most people will read it all. So, I wanted to do a thread where we could specifically discuss the six paragraphs about contraception I quoted above (And try to encourage people to read them)- this is the contraception thread.

"Fr Zalba, do you really believe God has carried out all your orders?" is classic. Can you imagine being a fly on the wall at that meeting?

As a reminder, our sub-forum's statement of purpose specifically states that:

"This area allows for what would normally be considered by Rome dissent from the teachings the Magisterium of the Catholic Church."

So, we can do this here.

 

[Fish and Bread]

By the way, does anyone have a link to or a copy of an article called "A woman asks: how should violence be rejected? Morality exemplified. A debate" from a 1961 edition of "Studi Cattolici", which is or was a journal run by Opus Dei?

I'm interested in reading it. It relates to this subject. I see a lot of talk about it online, but I can't find the original. Three theologians in prominent positions in the Church purportedly find it licit for nuns facing the threat of rape to use contraception- for three separate reasons.

As a side note: Pope Francis has outright come out and said that Pope Paul VI permitted actual nuns who were actually raped in the Congo to use contraception. Some conservative publications think Pope Francis is wrong about that, but they can't prove it. The story has been around for a long time.

 

[Hank77]

"Fr Zalba, do you really believe God has carried out all your orders?" is classic. Can you imagine being a fly on the wall at that meeting?

Couldn't help but chuckle.

This is an interesting article.

 

[CrystalDragon]

I'm glad for this. Contraception prevents pregnancy from happening in the first place, so it's not even killing a life like abortion would be (which can be especially troubling for those who've been sexually assaulted). I mean, contraception shouldn't be used if you want children, obviously, but in situations of assault like that it could at least potentially lessen the chain of effects of the situation.

 

[FireDragon76]

Once you take the Romantic blinders off, then you realize Christians have taught some questionable ethics from time to time.

"We are a mixture of saint and sinner" (as a Lutheran, I approve). I think some people are just terrified of looking into themselves and owning up to their mixed motives, their deluded thinking, and their ultimate ignorance and hypocrisy when making such absolutist claims about what is and is not "natural".

 

[Rhamiel]

I'm glad for this. Contraception prevents pregnancy from happening in the first place, so it's not even killing a life like abortion would be (which can be especially troubling for those who've been sexually assaulted). I mean, contraception shouldn't be used if you want children, obviously, but in situations of assault like that it could at least potentially lessen the chain of effects of the situation.

I think there has been some talk of use of contraceptives in cases of sexual assault

because assault does not take place in the context of a romantic relationship, so the argument of natural law would not really apply

 

[Paidiske]

I'd never thought of the proscription of contraception as a form of spiritual abuse; it's a very interesting argument. Where the appeal to religious/spiritual authority is used to control others, that is spiritual abuse; and it would be hard to argue that this is never done in discussions of contraception.

I remember my ethics lecturer - a Catholic priest in good standing - decrying the "moral micro-management" of the church on this issue, but this goes a step further than that. Much to think about; thank you, F&B, for sharing the article.

 

[Davidnic]

I think there has been some talk of use of contraceptives in cases of sexual assault

because assault does not take place in the context of a romantic relationship, so the argument of natural law would not really apply

Yep 2001 USCCB ethical directives for hospitals. Number 36:

Ethical directives for Catholic Healthcare (number 36):
Compassionate and understanding care should be given to a person who is the victim of sexual assault. Health care providers should cooperate with law enforcement officials and offer the person psychological and spiritual support as well as accurate medical information. A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.​

Basically as long as conception (edit for clarity...ovulation is tested for with the chance of conception) has not occurred ovulation can be suppressed because you are not abridging and act of love but protecting from an act of violence. It is a different objective act in moral theology when it is sexual assault. similar action can be different objective acts in some cases.

 

[CrystalDragon]

Yep 2001 USCCB ethical directives for hospitals. Number 36:

Ethical directives for Catholic Healthcare (number 36):
Compassionate and understanding care should be given to a person who is the victim of sexual assault. Health care providers should cooperate with law enforcement officials and offer the person psychological and spiritual support as well as accurate medical information. A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.​

Basically as long as conception has not occurred ovulation can be suppressed because you are not abridging and act of love but protecting from an act of violence. It is a different objective act in moral theology when it is sexual assault. similar action can be different objective acts in some cases.

I wonder though: if God is all-powerful, directly interacts in our lives, and only would want children to be produced in a loving relationship, why not make it so if assault happens pregnancy never occurs?

 

[Paidiske]

In reality, though, how on earth could that be tested for?

Someone comes into hospital immediately after a rape; there is no pregnancy test in the world which can tell you whether conception has already occurred.

 

[Davidnic]

You can use contraception that suppresses ovulation but does not cause abortion. The two common methods used by Catholic hospitals in this case are a Luteinizing dip test or a progesterone test to determine if there is a likely hood that conception has taken place. And if not you have several methods that are not abortive.

 

[Davidnic]

The progesterone test in particular can tell, with some degree of confidence, if ovulation has happened already. There are a couple more now, a follicle stimulating hormone test. LH surge monitoring. All of these can tell if there was a low to high chance of conception and assess potential ovulation.

 

[Hank77]

The progesterone test in particular can tell, with some degree of confidence, if ovulation has happened already. There are a couple more now, a follicle stimulating hormone test. LH surge monitoring. All of these can tell if there was a low to high chance of conception and assess potential ovulation.

So the test is to determine ovulation not conception?

 

[Davidnic]

So the test is to determine ovulation not conception?

Essentially, ovulation with a high chance of conception. Usually along the lines of low, high and peak. There are varying degrees of certainty with different tests.

 

[Hank77]

Essentially, ovulation with a high chance of conception. Usually along the lines of low, high and peak. There are varying degrees of certainty with different tests.

Thank you, now I know I didn't misunderstand.

 

[Rhamiel]

I wonder though: if God is all-powerful, directly interacts in our lives, and only would want children to be produced in a loving relationship, why not make it so if assault happens pregnancy never occurs?

then it would be a reduction of the freedom of choice on other people

like if we could do whatever we wanted, but our actions had no problematic consequences, then it would make our actions meaningless

sex results in the possibility of a baby
people can choose to rape other people, this might result in a baby
rape is a horrible thing to choose to do to someone, but it is still a choice

 

[Hank77]

then it would be a reduction of the freedom of choice on other people

like if we could do whatever we wanted, but our actions had no problematic consequences, then it would make our actions meaningless

sex results in the possibility of a baby
people can choose to rape other people, this might result in a baby
rape is a horrible thing to choose to do to someone, but it is still a choice

It is certainly not the woman choice or God's will.

 

[Rhamiel]

It is certainly not the woman choice or God's will.

true, and because it is not her choice, contraception is seen as permissible
but getting murdered is not a persons choice either, yet the person is still dead
so that is why pregnancy is possible when rape happens
though it is very unlikely