Why The Pope Can't Change the Church's Position on Birth Control

[noamnety]

I came across a great article on this, written in 1999, relating the war on reproductive rights back to the concept of papal infallibility which Pope Pius IX came up with in 1870.

Some highlights:

"The proponents of papal infallibility could not imagine the population explosion of the last half of this century. We find it hard to believe in those who claim moral leadership, while implacably resisting any serious solutions to the population problem worldwide.Just as its critics had predicted, institutional self-destruction is now well under way. But, as it stands now, the Church cannot change its position on birth control without undermining all of its dogma. The Vatican is now obliged to protect the fundamental doctrine of papal infallibility at all costs."

<snip>

"In 1964, Pope Paul VI created the Papal Commission on Population and Birth Control. It was a two-part commission, and met from 1964 to 1966. One consisted of 64 lay persons, the other, of 15 clerics, including Pope John Paul II, then a Polish cardinal. Pope Paul gave the Commission only one mission—-to determine how the Church could change its position on birth control without undermining papal authority. After two years of study, the Commission concluded that it was not possible to make this change without undermining papal authority but that the Church should make the change anyway because it was the right thing to do! The lay members voted 60 to 4 for change, and the clerics, 9 to 6 for change. (2) We know this because one or more members released the details without permission to an Italian and a French newspaper. Pope Paul did not act immediately. A minority report was prepared, co-authored by the man who is now Pope John Paul II. In this report he stated:

If it should be declared that contraception is not evil in itself, then we should have to concede frankly that the Holy Spirit had been on the side of the Protestant churches in 1930 (when the encyclical Casti Connubii was promulgated), in 1951 (Pius XII's address to the midwives), and in 1958 (the address delivered before the Society of Hematologists in the year the pope died). It should likewise have to be admitted that for a half century the Spirit failed to protect Pius XI, Pius XII, and a large part of the Catholic hierarchy from a very serious error.

This would mean that the leaders of the Church, acting with extreme imprudence, had condemned thousands of innocent human acts, forbidding, under pain of eternal damnation, a practice which would now be sanctioned. The fact can neither be denied nor ignored that these same acts would now be declared licit on the grounds of principles cited by the Protestants, which popes and bishops have either condemned or at least not approved. "

http://www.population-security.org/STLouis99.html

In addition to talking about how the church doesn't oppose birth control and abortion in their own right, but rather continues the crusade against them solely to maintain the pretense of papal infallability, the article discusses the Vatican's role in the creation of the moral majority and its influence in American politics. The situation is incredibly infuriating - they won't do what they themselves feel is morally right because it might jeopardize their position of power.

[Silverhair]

1. They would have to give up lots else besides.

Among other things, to accept birth control, they would have to give up the doctrine of Mary being conceived in an Immaculate Conception. For those who don't know what that means, it is the doctrine that the sex act that resulted in Mary being conceived was the only sex act in the history of humanity that was without the element of lust. It was "Holy". So, in plain language, it is the doctrine of the "Holy Screwing".

That doctrine underpins a lot of other Catholic teachings, so they can't really give it up.

BTW - The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is NOT in the Bible, nor is it in any of the writings of the Apostolic Fathers.

[Donailin]

2. The dogma on ABC is pretzel logic, they can certainly undo it

if they wanted. The premise is that although NFP can be practiced to a science, the mindset of the practicioner is still open to the possibility of life, meaning that if God chose to he could make that egg drop pre or postmaturely, so the couple is allowing God the final word. But with abc, God's will is completely thwarted by medicine, the couple does not concern themselves with a possible accident and therefore they trump God's -- now get this -- omnipotence.

So two things are obviously wrong here: God can trump the natural course of the egg, but not the effectiveness of the pill/condom. (He can't perform a miracle, which many women who were using abc and still got pregnant would beg to differ)

Secondly, a couple is thwarting God's will absolutely with ABC but onlyhalf heartedly with NFP.

In summary: Either God is omnipotent or he isn't, and folks are totally trying to not have kids with ABC but with NFP, they're not really serious about avoiding conception.

[kenny blankenship]

3. Heartbreaking. Infuriating.

Now I know why they wear those dresses down to their ankles: they're trying to cover their asses.

The whole thing you've posted is motivated by the political urge to avoid admitting an error and consequently looking powermad and stupid. Well let me clue you in: you're WAY too late to avoid creating that impression. JUST CHANGE IT ALREADY. As a secular liberal I PROMISE to just look the other way and not make any remarks about it.

(pS: where I say or imply "you" above, I mean them, the Catholic hierarchy. I'm sure you decipehered that from my confused style, meaning you, the original poster.)

[noamnety]

4. ditto on that promise

all of us would do that, and they'd probably get a lot of catholics returning to the faith.

nobody decides to be a catholic because of the infallibility deal; the apology for their part in the holocaust didn't make people lose their faith - people embraced that.

I hope someday they will also apologize for the people that died or were persecuted or otherwise suffered because of their unwillingness to admit a mistake.

[Warpy]

9. Doctrinal rigidity

has condemned more than one religion to irrelevance, and it's aided by the doctrine of papal infallibility, especially when the pope is a celibate old man with absolutely no knowledge of reproduction, of women, of family issues, of medicine.

It's sad, but the combination of these two things will eventually end the church.

Since these pronouncements come from prayer, they're not likely to be overturned by saying, "Well, pope so and so's pronouncement was in error because he didn't have all the facts." That would be to admit prayer and meditation aren't particularly effective ways of determining anything, which would sort of remove the purpose of the church completely.

They have done a nice turnaround on Galileo, but it took 500 years for enough facts to accumulate to start making them look silly enough on that one.

I can't think of anything that would cause them to abandon their cruel position on birth control beyond being abandoned in favor of churches that allow it. When the church is sufficiently depleted of members, perhaps they will change.

In the short term, however, I think the church is likelier to harden its position against women by electing an arch conservative to the next papacy. I would love to be proven wrong, but I doubt I will be. The church has never come to terms with sex, with women, and has only barely come to terms with the pedophilia in its own ranks.

[Snap]

5. This says a mouthfull,

How many scoundrels dancing on the head of a pin? A long and dismal history of self-serving theological managers living in pampered luxury.

[Selteri]

6. Dude, it's still a 'minor' sin to mastrubate as a male

because you're killing all your little future children. These people are still in the stone age with their reforms... they've got a long way to go to catch up with this millenium... like 400 years.

[rodeodance]

7. by that logic women can matrubate cause we have no seed to lose

[Selteri]

8. I dunno, it's still a sin of pleasure. ;)

Science don't enter into it. By their logic every man is guilty of mass genocide before they are 18.

I was raised in a Catholic / Lutheran environment...

I'm a dieist, I don't think God, whatever form God may have taken, would be so stupid as to want us to develope a religion based upon guilt and suffering.