Talk:Humanae Vitae

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Catholicism Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.

Please clarify the encylical's position on barrier methods of birth control.

Barrier method is condomned as contrary to nature. That is the root of all Catholic teaching on birth control. What is at issue is how God created the universe. Anything contrary to God's plan is sinful. This would, therefore, include birth control, abortion, euthanasia, etc.Davescj 09:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)dave

Maybe the page could also use some context on how long the church has held this doctrine against abortion... -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 05:50, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Question:

Wasn't Humanae Vitae written by Pope John Paul II? Correct me if I am wrong. BrainyJaney 21:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)BrainyJaney

It was issued by Paul VI. Some of the theory in it was developed earlier by Wotylja in "Love and Responsibility," but I think that is the extent of the connection. Mlouns 02:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Also: In 1995, John Paul II wrote the encyclical EVANGELIUM VITAE, which reaffirms, and expounds upon, the teaching on contraception and abortion. LotR 17:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality?

The conclusion of this article seems to argue in favour of the Catholic Church's official teaching. I would think this was inappropriate for an encyclopedia. You might explain some of the theological arguments for relaxing the present discipline. After all, as you say, Paul VI acted against the advice of his own commission. Gaz 2-7-06

Of course there is a support of the teaching of the Catholic Church. The document in question is released by the magesterium and requires that Catholics submit faithfully to its directives, even if they don't agree with it. There would be no point to an article about Humane Vitae if it didn't "favour" the teaching of the Church because it Is the teaching of the Church. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.184.151.106 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that saying that there has been a resurgence of support among Catholics for this is the same as being supportive. (There should be a citation for this upsurge in support, though). JASpencer 13:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I was not specific in my criticism. Mea culpa. I refer to the last statement, which reads 'also, the advent of high-speed digital basal thermometers, along with improved knowledge of a woman's menstrual cycle, have enhanced the success rate and acceptance of natural methods of birth control.'A highly debatable, and unsourced, statement. The fact that it concludes the article instead of an objective summing up might cause a reader to doubt the author's neutrality. Gaz July 3 2006

I agree with the previous comment -- I'm not sure how this statement violates POV, especially considering the tone of the first 3 paragraphs of the section, which one may argue are in opposition to the Church's teaching. High speed digital basal thermometers are a necessary technology, not available in 1968, that has led to the improved success rate of the sympto-thermal method. I've done a quick look over the internet on the success rate and admittedly there is some variation. However, all indications are that, when correctly followed, the sympto-thermal method attains a significantly higher success rate than the old rhythm method available in 1968. The success rate of any method of "birth control" will certainly factor into its acceptance. One of the better sites I found is: http://www.naturaltransition.com/avoiding-pregnancy.htm LotR 21:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
"The document in question is released by the magesterium and requires that Catholics submit faithfully to its directives, even if they don't agree with it." Actually, that is not the case. Teachings of the Ordinary Papal Magisterium should be read, studied, prayed over and given the benefit of the doubt. But, after doing that, if one can still not accept it, one should follow one's own conscience. Jhobson1 15:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Canon 752 of the Code of Canon Law defines the response owed to the ordinary papal magisterium (bold added): "Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it." -- Cat Whisperer 15:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Categories

This article has been removed from Category:Natural family planning as part of a planned deletion of Category:Periodic abstinence, Category:Fertility awareness, and Category:Natural family planning. Please bring up any concerns at Category talk:Fertility tracking. If there are no objections within four days, these three categories will be tagged for speedy deletion.

I also removed this article from Category:Religious views on birth control - I think better navigation can happen with the entire Category:Theology of the Body as a sub-cat of "religious views", rather than including only select articles. Lyrl Talk C 00:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Common Misunderstandings" section

I noticed that a new section, "Common Misunderstandings," has been appended. I think the new material can and should be reduced. This can be achieved by suitably incorporating it into the "Reception" section in an NPOV fashion. For example, that section's first paragraph raises the AIDS/condoms objection. The logical place for a pared-down counterpoint follows there. I will be moving to do this in the near future. LotR 14:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

SOunds good, I have no objection. The.helping.people.tick 14:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Quote from Pius XII

One issue here is why the Church is holding on to the procreational view of sexuality, which prohibits any birth control. I added to the history section the quote from Pius XII to show, that there were alternatives, which by implication would have a possibly impacted birth control methods. They did not exist at that time of the quote.

The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation (Address to Midwifes, October 29.1951)

--Ambrosius007 (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, these additions are problematic. Several issues: The issue of why should be here only in the context of the subject, in how the encyclical influences such positions. And even then there is editorial discretion to determine how much to write about that. This certainly isn't the place to rehash much larger catechistic refinements. Second: your statement of the Church's view must be written sloppily, because as it is it is factually wrong; indeed you may see there is no "why" that you wish to consider, once you refactor. Third, Pius's quote suggests no such alternatives. It is simply acknowledgements that it not wrong to wish nor expect to enjoy the generative function, and that while doing so, the spouses are called to do what is right ("just"). It itself says nothing about what is "right" in this context, other than that seeking and experiencing pleasure, in and of themselves, can be so. So at the end, this material really serves no purpose in this particular article. Actually, they would only serve to confuse. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The section deals with the history of HV! In this context major statements of the Magisterium are not only valid, but essential for understanding the reactions to the encyclical after its issuance.

I am of the opinion,sorry to say, that Baccyak4H and his friend do not own this Wikipedia page. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, interesting point, about reactions. But then that is where our confusion lies: when you say "history" you mean "historical reaction" rather than "its own prestory". Now I get it.
I would then suggest that Pius's material should be referred to in the reception section. That would be plausible, as many do misread his material as such. (If that is what you were trying to say earlier when I said you misspoke, I apologize, and now understand your point). A lot of the other material you just added should be reorganized in a similar way, although I would prefer to reword some of it for clarity and conciseness in the process.
I am in full agreement with your opinion, BTW, as would every other good faith editor here (so no need for apologies). Just trying to write a better article, that's all. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 21:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The Dutch Catechism, to give one example can be in the history section (because it preceeeded HV) or in the Reaction section, since it really took off afterwards. We have a small conflict in the role of Wojtyla, I added my reading of the two biographies but it cannot stay like this. I am sure, that a solution can be found. What do you propose?

I write very fast and would be grateful for your editing and rewording for clarity. Thank's

--Ambrosius007 (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that any writings/events that influenced the writing of HV be included in the history section. The commission is the obvious example. It is not clear to me that the Dutch Catechism did. (To be fair, I have never heard of it, although as it seems the state of its imprimatur is quite ambiguous, I have to doubt it played any influencial role.) Use as a contrast in describing reception seems good if it can be sourced. I would choose to tone back the description of this and other comparators (i.e., Pius's addresses) however, as they can be (and are) properly described elsewhere.
The issue with Wojtyla seems merely an editorial one; he clearly influenced the document but sources differ exactly how. Saying "he had a hand in its drafting" (for example) seems a safe statement, although surely we can do better.
Actually, upon reading Witness to Hope, it seems it has a lot of material regarding Wojtyla's contributions, and, pointedly, also the lack thereof. I'll have a go to summarize it, hopefully soon; there is some good material there.
I appreciate your request as some of the most fulfilling writing I do is to consolidate the writings of others into one smooth narrative. I'll do what I can. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I cleaned up a lot of your additions per request. I hope you agree it reads much better. I like where the Dutch Catechism is discussed, since it seems only important after the fact. I will get to Weigel later, but agree that is a great source. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 05:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank's, you did a wonderful job. The page reads much better and is more Catholic!

There is one very important point missing under "Reception". While the reactions in the US and Western (not eastern) Europe, were largely negative, great support came from the bishops of LA, who had resisted American and European led efforts, to link bilateral and multilateral (World Bank) aid to birth control in their countries. To many of them, HV was most welcome. I will add this important part later.

--Ambrosius007 (talk) 13:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

PS Imprimatur Dutch Catechism: The original imprimatur: "Utrecht, March 1, 1966 by Bernardus Cardinal Alfrink"