Talk:Humanae Vitae
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)
[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 Viate 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)
