Pope upholds stance against condom use

[PolyCarp of Smyrna]

Hi there. Here I am again, trying to write yet another apologetic defense regarding the moral theology of the Catholic Church. I fear that if I don't nip this in the bud right now, then I will have failed to address the need at the appropriate time.

Alright, here it is..you all have already been posting and discussing the recent declaration of Pope JP2 which reaffirms the Chruch's positon on the usage of condoms, and here is an article that appeared in today's Evansville Courier and Press. It is from the Washington Post. Tell me if YOU see anything askew in this article:

[b]QUOTE[/b] ("Pope upholds stance against condom use By Daniel Williams The Washington Post January 23 @ 2005")

[b]ROME -[/b] After several days of unusual public debate among senior figures in the Roman Catholic Church, Pope John Paul II on Saturday reaffirmed church teaching that urges abstinence and marital fidelity to stop the spread of AIDS and forbids condoms. "The Holy See," he said, "believes prevention through education about the sacredness of life and the correct practice of sexuality, that is chastity and faithfulness, is necessary above all other things in order to prevent this disease responsibly." He made the remarks in a written statement to the newly accredited Netherlands ambassador. His words followed a week in which a high official of Spain's Bishops Conference said there was "a place" for condoms in AIDS prevention, but then was overruled by the full Bishops Conference, and other leaders weighed in to suggest publicly that a policy change might be appropriate. In recent days, the pope has also stressed the role of Catholic health workers in tending to the AIDS-stricken. "At my request, the church has mobilized in favor of the victims and especially in order to assure access to help and the necessary medical care through a number of treatment centers," he said. He was referring to the Holy See's Good Samaritan Foundation, established last year to coordinate funds and organizations to help AIDS victims. The church opposes the use of condoms except in rare circumstances, on grounds that they are a form of birth control and that to open the lid on their use would foster immorality. The Vatican has depicted contraception as part of an attack on the "culture of life" because it blocks the creation of children. On Saturday, John Paul II repeated the Vatican's condemnation of euthanasia, which the Netherlands has legalized and which in the pontiff's view is an example of the "culture of death." "The Holy See has made known its clear position and invites Catholics in the Netherlands always to show their absolute respect for human life, from conception to natural death," the pope said in the statement. Pope Paul VI banned the use of contraception 37 years ago, and at that time the issue was almost entirely birth control. Ever since, high church officials have considered the question largely to be closed. But the AIDS pandemic has led to calls from some corners of the global church for authorizing at least one form of contraception - condoms - as a means of preventing HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, from spreading. Two cardinals in Europe this week offered a hypothetical situation in which use of a condom might be justified: when a woman must have sex with someone who is infected with HIV and therefore must protect herself.[/quote] Well..did you see anything that was a bit, oh...perhaps skewed? let me help you out.. [quote]Pope Paul VI banned the use of contraception 37 years ago, and at that time the issue was almost entirely birth control.[/quote] This is the primary error I found in the article, and I did notice a few others, but they were more subtle. I am going to write an apologetic reply and submit it to my local newspaper for print in the Opinion Editorial section. I was wondering, does anyone know the what the name of the Supreme Court Case was back in the 1960's that declared the existing state laws that curtailed, limited, or prohibited the sale and/or usage of artifical contraception? Also, is there a quote that can be employed from a Church council prior to 1900 that exhibits the position of the Church on contraception? I will continue with my google search, but if you know the answers or have some suggestions, I am all ....uh..eyes!..yeah..I was gonna say ears..but that wouldn't be appropriate.. Ok, Pax Christi, Thom

[jezic]

denying life is intrinsically evil. It goes against the unwritten law of the conscience. The church should not even have to comment.

Any denial of life is at its core wrong and under no circumstances is it anything but a mortal sin. This includes all birth control, gay sex, abortion, or anything else the denies life.

[MagiDragon]

you can use the story of Onan in Genesis chapter 38. it's not technically written by The Church, but i think it certainly shows the general concept rather well.

Peace,
Joe

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote]Two cardinals in Europe this week offered a hypothetical situation in which use of a condom might be justified: when a woman must have sex with someone who is infected with HIV and therefore must protect herself.[/quote]
That hypothetical situation is circus-worthy.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jan 23 2005, 08:36 PM'] That hypothetical situation is circus-worthy. [/quote]
in that case, the use of a contraceptive would be permissable, since the primary goal is self-defense and the contraception of the sex act is a secondary effect.

[jezic]

I don't quite understand. Could you explain how that would make it permissible?

Unless you mean permissible as in it is not as serious as doing it to prevent the conception of a child however, isn't it still a mortal sin?

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='jezic' date='Jan 23 2005, 11:30 PM'] I don't quite understand. Could you explain how that would make it permissible?

Unless you mean permissible as in it is not as serious as doing it to prevent the conception of a child however, isn't it still a mortal sin? [/quote]
one must make a distinction between primary and secondary effect. i'll use killing and self-defense as an example. to take someone's life is a mortal sin. however, when my primary goal is not to kill but to defend myself--and it is only incidental that in performing my primary objective i kill a person--then my act is not sinful. that is b/c defense was my primary objective and the death of someone was the secondary effect.

in the same way, contraception is sinful when it is the [i][b]primary [/b][/i]goal. but, in the example of being forced to have sex w/ someone who has AIDS, the primary goal is self-defense, which is a just action, and the confounding of procreation is a secondary or incidental effect.

[PolyCarp of Smyrna]

HEY..HERE'S MY APOLOGY!!

Please review this letter to the editor of the Evansville Courier and Press. It is my apologetical reply to the above mentioned article that appeared in Sunday's edition of their newspaper.

Tear it up..please let me know your honest critique, comments, and suggestions.

I greatly desire to continue sharpening my apologetic edge.



Pax Christi,


Thom

[quote name='"My Apology: Letter to the Editor of the Evansville Courier and Press"']January 23, 2005


Dear Chuck Leach:

I am writing to correct the false information, which appeared in an article in today’s Evansville Courier and Press.  The article, written by Daniel Williams of The Washington Post, bore the title “pope upholds stance against condom use”.

Either Mr. Williams is either unaware of the history of Christianity and contraception, or he just usurps the liberty to inject his own opinion in to an article that I believe should bear objective truth over personal preference and presupposed dispositions.

The following quote in Mr. Williams article is the primary correction that needs to be addressed:
“Pope Paul VI banned the use of contraception 37 years ago, and at that time the issue was almost entirely birth control. Ever since, high church officials have considered the question largely to be closed. But the AIDS pandemic has led to calls from some corners of the global church for authorizing at least one form of contraception - condoms - as a means of preventing HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, from spreading.”
The author’s statement here, when taken to its logical conclusion, is making implication the Roman Catholic Church banned contraception in the late 1960’s. Therefore, the unsuspecting reader, forms, at least subconsciously, two possible resolves impressed on their psyche:

1. The practice of artificial contraception was permitted and not banned by the Roman Catholic Church until 1968.

OR


2. The Roman Catholic Church did not have a specific and distinct moral teaching addressing the issue of artificial contraception until the development and introduction to the “pill” in the 1960’s.

The historical facts in this matter are not adequately represented in either of the possible conclusive destinations that could be drawn from Mr. Williams’ article.  The truth is, that in 1968, Pope Paul VI published his Apostolic Letter “Humanae Vitae”1 (Latin, "Human Life"). Pope Paul VI did not institute a new ban on artificial contraception; He reaffirmed the historical and consistent position that the Church has held in its moral and ethical teaching regarding this subject:

“That it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.” 2


The Catholic Church takes moral teachings from the Nation of Israel and has thus, as did God instructed His people, opposed birth control from the dawn of creation.  There is at least one form of contraception specifically mentioned in Sacred Scripture and it is vehemently condemned by God. Coitus interruptus, was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother.
"Judah said to Onan,

‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a
brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’

But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also" (Gen. 38:8–10).

The fact that Sacred Scripture records that Onan’s offense merited the punishment of death illustrate that his crime was more heinous than simply refusing to fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law. God struck him down because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as "Onanism," after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as "Sodomy," after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19).

Today, many think that artificial contraception is relatively new because of advancements in modern medicine and technology.  They purport this attitude such that they can condemn the historic teachings on this matter as being “antiquated”, “old fashioned”, or just simply out of touch “with the times”. The premise for making accepting such a flawed sense of factual history finds its origin in selfish, emotionally motivated mindset, for which the principles of logic, reason, and faith are trampled by a primitive desire to enjoy the pleasure of sexuality without the risk of inadvertently conceiving a child and having to endure the pangs of a most inconvenient pregnancy. artificial contraception is anything but a “new” invention or even a new development in medicine.

Descriptions of ancient methods of birth control can be found all throughout history. Some of the writers tell of the usage of such devices as wool that absorbed sperm, poisons that fumigated the uterus, potions, and other methods were used to prevent conception. In some centuries, even condoms were used (though made out of animal skin rather than latex).

There are historic records of Egyptian women using a pessary (a vaginal suppository) made of various acidic substances (crocodile dung is alleged) and lubricated with honey or oil, which may have been somewhat effective at killing sperm. However, it is important to note that the sperm cell was not discovered until Anton van Leeuwenhoek invented the microscope in the late 17th century, so barrier methods employed prior to that time could not know of the details of conception. Oriental women may have used oiled paper as a cervical cap, and Europeans may have used beeswax for this purpose.3

Various abortifacients have been used throughout human history. Some of these were effective, some were not; those that were most effective also had major side effects. The ingestion of certain poisons by the female can disrupt the reproductive system; women have drunk solutions containing mercury, arsenic, or other toxic substances for this purpose. The Greek gynaecologist Soranus in the 2nd century AD suggested that women drink water that blacksmiths had used to cool metal. The herbs tansy and pennyroyal are well-known in folklore as abortive agents, but these also "work" by poisoning the woman. Levels of the active chemicals in these herbs that will induce a miscarriage are high enough to damage the liver, kidneys, and other organs, making them very dangerous. However, in those times where risk of maternal death from postpartum complications was high, the risks and side effects of toxic medicines may have seemed less onerous. It is also believed that black cohosh tea will also be effective in certain cases as an abortifacient.4

There are a multitude of additional examples that one could find regarding various efforts employed by women throughout history to avoid conception.  Regardless of the method or mechanism, the Catholic Church has always been in opposition to the very principle for which these efforts are cultivated.

If one cares to examine the history of the Catholic Church, it will be obvious from the writings of the earliest Christians, that the Church’s present position on contraception has not changed nor wavered from even prior to the first century A.D.  Take a look at how the Fathers of the early Church addressed and regarded efforts to prevent conception (use a means of contraception):

Clement of Alexandria
"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]).5
"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (ibid., 2:10:95:3).

Hippolytus
"[Christian women with male concubines], on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered" (Refutation of All Heresies 9:12 [A.D. 225]).6

Lactantius
"[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Divine Institutes 6:20 [A.D. 307]).

"God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital [’generating’] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring" (ibid., 6:23:18) 7
 
Council of Nicaea I
"[I]f anyone in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy" (Canon 1 [A.D. 325]) 8

Augustine
"You [Manicheans] make your auditors adulterers of their wives when they take care lest the women with whom they copulate conceive. They take wives according to the laws of matrimony by tablets announcing that the marriage is contracted to procreate children; and then, fearing because of your law [against childbearing] . . . they copulate in a shameful union only to satisfy lust for their wives. They are unwilling to have children, on whose account alone marriages are made. How is it, then, that you are not those prohibiting marriage, as the apostle predicted of you so long ago [1 Tim. 4:1–4], when you try to take from marriage what marriage is? When this is taken away, husbands are shameful lovers, wives are harlots, bridal chambers are brothels, fathers-in-law are pimps" (Against Faustus 15:7 [A.D. 400]).

"I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility. . . . Assuredly if both husband and wife are like this, they are not married, and if they were like this from the beginning they come together not joined in matrimony but in seduction. If both are not like this, I dare to say that either the wife is in a fashion the harlot of her husband or he is an adulterer with his own wife" (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17 [A.D. 419]).9

John Chrysostom
"Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before birth? You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well. . . . Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with his [natural] laws? . . . Yet such turpitude . . . the matter still seems indifferent to many men—even to many men having wives. In this indifference of the married men there is greater evil filth; for then poisons are prepared, not against the womb of a prostitute, but against your injured wife. Against her are these innumerable tricks" (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]). 10

The condemnation of artificial contraception from a moral, ethical, and theological viewpoint maintained even through the Protestant reformation. These tenants of faith were not only accepted but even taught by the earliest Protestant Reformers:

Martin Luther
"[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him." (Commentary on Genesis).11

John Calvin
"The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring." (Latin Commentary on Genesis 38:10.) 12

John Wesley
"Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he [Onan] did displeased the Lord—and it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls." (Commentary on Genesis)13

Protestant denominations have been in accord with and practice of, the Catholic Church’s teaching condemning contraception as sinful up until only about 75 years ago. Look at how the Lambeth Conference addressed this issue at their session that was held less than 100 years ago, 1920:
1920 Lambeth Conference of Anglican Bishops
“We utter an emphatic warning against the use of unnatural means for the avoidance of conception, together with the grave dangers - physical, moral and religious - thereby incurred, and against the evils with which the extension of such use threatens the race. In opposition to the teaching which, under the name of science and religion, encourages married people in the deliberate cultivation of sexual union as an end in itself, we steadfastly uphold what must always be regarded as the governing considerations of Christian marriage.”
(Resolution 68: Problems of Marriage and Sexual Morality)14

What a difference just 10 years and a worldwide depression can make; It can be the difference between night and day. In 1930, at the height of the Great Depression, The Anglican Bishops met again at the Lambeth Conference. 

Unfortunately, this time, due to social the mounting social pressures of the times, the Anglican church, wavered in its historical condemnation of contraceptive measures, and declared that contraception would be allowed in some circumstances.
1930 Lambeth Conference of Anglican Bishops
“in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.”
(Resolution 15: The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage and Sex) 15

Shortly there after, the Anglican church completely rescinded its previous condemnation and gradually permitted contraception as a “normative” and accepted means of “responsible stewardship” for the married couple. This declaration by the Anglican church led all other Protestant denominations to find artificial contraception to be acceptable and even recommended in certain circumstances.

In the United States, many states had existing laws that prohibited and/or curtailed the usage and sale of contraceptive products.  It wasn’t until the 1965 Supreme Court Case GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT, that these existing regulations against artificial contraception were declared unconstitutional.

MR. JUSTICE GOLDBERG, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN join, concurring.
“I agree with the Court that Connecticut's birth-control law unconstitutionally intrudes upon the right of marital privacy, and I join in its opinion and judgment. Although I have not accepted the view that "due process" as used in the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates all of the first eight Amendments, I do agree that the concept of liberty protects those personal rights that are fundamental, and is not confined to the specific terms of the Bill of Rights. My conclusion that the concept of liberty is not so restricted and that it embraces the right of marital privacy though that right is not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution is supported both by numerous decisions of this Court, referred to in the Court's opinion, and by the language and history of the Ninth Amendment. In reaching the conclusion that the right of marital privacy is protected, as being within the protected penumbra of specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights, the Court refers to the Ninth Amendment, I add these words to emphasize the relevance of that Amendment to the Court's holding.

The Court stated many years ago that the Due Process Clause protects those liberties that are ‘so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.’"
[GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT ;U.S. Supreme Court; 381 U.S. 479 (1965);Decided June 7, 1965.] 16

This statement begs the question of just what traditions and conscience of our people was he considering when he made his declaration in favor of artificial contraception.  It sure was not the historic position by which this nation had abided nor was it policy of those nations from whom our founders originated. It would seem to reason that this ruling, as unfounded as it is in historicity, gained its momentum from a frenzy of emotional considerations and the desire of the justices to arrive at an abrupt resolve to this most taboo of issues.

In conclusion, it is evident from a careful study of history, that Pope Paul VI did not institute a new “ban” on contraception in 1968.  Humane Vitae was the Apostolic Letter in which Holy See was reaffirming the consistent teaching of faith and morals that transcends recorded history. The Catholic Church that has preserved, for thousands of years, this most ancient moral standard, and at present, the Catholic Church alone proclaims the historic Christian position on contraception. I will not elaborate at this time, but Humane Vitae contained in it 4 statements about what would be the result if societies were to adopt a “contraceptive” standard of mentality.  The four prophetic statements have all came to pass as will be easy to see in light of our present culture and the ominous accuracy of those predictions is becoming radically more profound.

Thank you so much for your time.



Pax Christi,



The layman


FOOT NOTE REFERENCES
1 The complete text of Humane Vitae, may be obtained online at [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/...e-vitae_en.html[/url]
2 Contraception is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14)
3 Excerpted from History of Birth Control, which may be found online at [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_control"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_control[/url]
4 Ibid.
5 Writings of the Early Church Fathers may be found online at  [url="http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/"]http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/[/url]
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
11 Charles Provan, The Bible and Birth Control, (Monongahela, PA: Zimmer Printing, 1989), 63
12 Ibid.
13 Ibid.
14 The Lambeth Conference Archives contains the record of all of the proclamations and decisions made at each Lambeth Conference that has been held, beginning in the latter part of the 19th century.  Please find this information online at [url="http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/archive/1920/1920-68.htm"]http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/arch...920/1920-68.htm[/url]
15  Please find this information online at [url="http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/archive/1930/1930-15.htm"]http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/arch...930/1930-15.htm[/url]
16 This information about GRIZWOLD Vs. CONNETICUT may be found on line at www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/ projects/ftrials/conlaw/griswold.html[/quote]

Edited January 24, 2005 by PolyCarp of Smyrna

[jezic]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jan 24 2005, 01:37 AM'] one must make a distinction between primary and secondary effect. i'll use killing and self-defense as an example. to take someone's life is a mortal sin. however, when my primary goal is not to kill but to defend myself--and it is only incidental that in performing my primary objective i kill a person--then my act is not sinful. that is b/c defense was my primary objective and the death of someone was the secondary effect.

in the same way, contraception is sinful when it is the [i][b]primary [/b][/i]goal. but, in the example of being forced to have sex w/ someone who has AIDS, the primary goal is self-defense, which is a just action, and the confounding of procreation is a secondary or incidental effect. [/quote]
Is it not still sinful to take life??

I am not sure how it works, but my thoughts are that if you cause someone else to do an action, you are responsible for what they do. Though you didn't do it, the blame still mostly lies with you.

How can killing someone ever be justified?? I don't know if it can.

Sorry could you explain that further? Or maybe it is in the catechism.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='jezic' date='Jan 24 2005, 08:16 AM'] Is it not still sinful to take life??

I am not sure how it works, but my thoughts are that if you cause someone else to do an action, you are responsible for what they do. Though you didn't do it, the blame still mostly lies with you.

How can killing someone ever be justified?? I don't know if it can.

Sorry could you explain that further? Or maybe it is in the catechism. [/quote]
It is always gravely sinful to take an [i]innocent[/i] man's life, but a man has a right to defend himself from an unjust aggressor, and in the case of a man who is a guardian of others (e.g., his wife and children, or others in his care), he has not only a right to defend them from harm, but a duty to do so. If he fails to defend those who are in his care from harm, he commits a sin of omission. Now, in defending himself or in defending those who are in his care, he may use a proportionate amount of force including lethal force when necessary. Moreover, just as an individual has a right to defend himself from harm caused by an aggressor; so too, the State has a right to execute a criminal, and this right, which also can be a duty on the part of the State, is a moral truth founded upon the immutable divine and natural moral law, and as such, no power on earth, not even the Church's Magisterium may alter this truth by forbidding the judicious use of the death penalty.

God bless,
Todd

[PolyCarp of Smyrna]

Hey Todd:

Where are you taking your information from when you wrote
[quote name='"Apo Theoun' date=' aka Todd"']moral truth founded upon the immutable divine and natural moral law[/quote]

How many laws are contained in the ..."code" is it called, of the immutable divine and natural moral law? How can I find a list of these laws? I would like to know a couple or three or so of them.

Thanks Todd.

Pax Christi,


Thom

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='PolyCarp of Smyrna' date='Jan 24 2005, 11:19 AM'] How many laws are contained in the ..."code" is it called, of the immutable divine and natural moral law?  How can I find a list of these laws?  I would like to know a couple or three or so of them.

Thanks Todd.

Pax Christi,

Thom [/quote]
The divine and natural law can be seen by the light of natural reason, for through the power of his intellect a man can discern the moral character of an action based upon that actions proper end or finality. Moreover, the Magisterium, which is the perpetual extension of Christ the Teacher throughout time, can infallibly define the moral character of specific actions forbidding certain actions that are contrary to right reason and divine revelation.

As an example, the teaching of Pope Paul VI in [u]Humanae Vitae[/u] is a confirmation of an already definitive teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium forbidding contraception. In reference to [u]Humanae Vitae[/u] Pope John Paul II has stated that, "By describing the contraceptive act as intrinsically illicit, Paul VI meant to teach that the moral norm is such that it did not admit exceptions. [i]No personal or social circumstances could ever, can now, or will ever, render such an act lawful in itself[/i]. The existence of particular norms regarding man's way of acting in the world, which are endowed with a binding force that excludes always and in whatever situation the possibility of exceptions, is a constant teaching of tradition and of the Church's Magisterium which cannot be called into question by the Catholic theologian." [Pope John Paul II, [u]Truth in the Magisterium[/u], L'Osservatore Romano, 12 Nov. 1988]

Another example of a moral teaching that is immutable centers upon the gravely immoral nature of homosexual acts. Now because such acts are contrary to the unitive and procreative principles of the conjugal act itself, it follows that there can be no justification for such acts. The sexual act in its end establishes and confirms a communion of love between a man and a woman that is open to new life; thus, the conjugal act reflects the proper complementarity of the sexes, and as a consequence any abuse of the generative organs through homosexual acts, masturbation, or any other unnatural activity is always gravely immoral.

The illicit nature of abortion is another example of an immutable norm that binds in all cases, because no one may [i]intentionally[/i] bring about the death of an innocent person as a means or an end.

Finally, the immutable moral norm is not only revealed by the light of natural reason properly understood, but it is also shown forth in God's revelation of Himself and His will in both the Old and the New Testaments. Thus, the moral precepts of the Torah, particularly as they are expressed in the Decalogue, reveals the moral order, and no one, not even the Church's Magisterium, can approve of actions contrary to what God has revealed in His inspired word, whether it is contained in scripture or tradition. For more information on the objective nature of the moral law and on the universally binding force of the negative moral precepts of the Decalogue, I suggest that you read Pope John Paul II's encyclical letter [u]Veritatis Splendor[/u]. Another important text to read on this subject is St. Thomas' treatment of the moral law in the [u]Summa Theologica[/u].

God bless,
Todd

[jezic]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jan 24 2005, 11:24 AM'] It is always gravely sinful to take an [i]innocent[/i] man's life, but a man has a right to defend himself from an unjust aggressor, and in the case of a man who is a guardian of others (e.g., his wife and children, or others in his care), he has not only a right to defend them from harm, but a duty to do so. If he fails to defend those who are in his care from harm, he commits a sin of omission. Now, in defending himself or in defending those who are in his care, he may use a proportionate amount of force including lethal force when necessary. Moreover, just as an individual has a right to defend himself from harm caused by an aggressor; so too, the State has a right to execute a criminal, and this right, which also can be a duty on the part of the State, is a moral truth founded upon the immutable divine and natural moral law, and as such, no power on earth, not even the Church's Magisterium may alter this truth by forbidding the judicious use of the death penalty.

God bless,
Todd [/quote]
how is it not gravely sinful to take any life??

I see how it could be defended, but is it not still sinful to take it? When was the man made master of life to decide when one should end?

(it is not that i think you are wrong, i just always understood that as a defense it is still a sin <thou shall not kill> but it is not mortal because you did not wish to kill them only to save yourself.)

The gaurdian thing i can understand better because they are acting for someone else which is usually permissible.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='jezic' date='Jan 24 2005, 12:44 PM'] how is it not gravely sinful to take any life??

I see how it could be defended, but is it not still sinful to take it? When was the man made master of life to decide when one should end?

(it is not that i think you are wrong, i just always understood that as a defense it is still a sin <thou shall not kill> but it is not mortal because you did not wish to kill them only to save yourself.)

The gaurdian thing i can understand better because they are acting for someone else which is usually permissible. [/quote]
The Church, basing her teaching upon divine revelation and right reason, distinguishes between murder, which is the taking of an innocent life, and killing, which is the taking of an unjust aggressors life and which may sometimes be necessary (e.g., in cases involving the death penalty, war, or self-defense). If a man tries to kill you, or someone in your care, you have a right and a duty to defend yourself or those in your charge, even if you must kill the aggressor in order to do this.

God bless,
Todd

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='jezic' date='Jan 24 2005, 12:44 PM'] (it is not that i think you are wrong, i just always understood that as a defense it is still a sin <thou shall not kill> but it is not mortal because you did not wish to kill them only to save yourself.) [/quote]
The commandment of the Decalogue properly translated actually reads, "You shall not murder."

God bless,
Todd

[jezic]

Point noted. I see the distinction.

how does that fit with the turn the other cheeck comment that Jesus made?

[PolyCarp of Smyrna]

I guess asking for a critique was really crossing the line, wasn't it?

[jezic]

What do you mean?

[PolyCarp of Smyrna]

What I MEAN is that I posted above, my letter to the editor of my local newspaper and I was requesting a review, critique and/or commentary to help me cultivate my apologetic writing.

I didn't want to get mired up in a topic about what the deposit of faith is and by whom and how it is defined.


Pax Christi,

Thom

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='PolyCarp of Smyrna' date='Jan 24 2005, 03:14 PM']I guess asking for a critique was really crossing the line, wasn't it?[/quote]
please don't take any offense, bro. there are two conversations going on in this thread. as such, it can be difficult to maintain equal focus for both. as for me, i've been out of town, so i just saw your apology. i will "tear it up" as you request

before i even start w/ the specifics of what you wrote, you must know that this is way too long for something that will appear on the Opinion page. only their payed reporters get to write this much. so, they will either edit it for length or not publish it at all. i suggest YOU edit it for length so you can have control over what stays and what goes.

now, to what you have written (besides commentary, i will add in red any changes in spelling, punctuation, and word choice):

[quote]January 23, 2005


Dear Chuck Leach:

I am writing to correct [color=red]some[/color] information [color=red]that[/color] appeared in an article in [color=red]the Jaunuary __ issue by [/color] Daniel Williams of The Washington Post, [color=red]entitled[/color] “pope upholds stance against condom use”.

[color=red][delete "either"][/color] Mr. Williams is either unaware of the history of Christianity and contraception, or he just usurps the liberty to inject his own opinion in to an article that I believe should bear objective truth over personal preference and presupposed dispositions.[/quote]
ok, first you have to understand your audience. when people read opinion peices, they are LOOKING for something wrong in it. alot of times, your tone is enough to turn them off to what you have to say. i feel that your tone in this piece is hyper-critical. my first example of this is in your second paragraph here. there is no reason to assume WHY the information was incorrect. just state the facts and let them speak for themselves. i say get rid of this second paragraph.


[quote]The following quote in Mr. Williams[b][color=red]'[/color][/b] article is the primary correction that needs to be addressed:
“Pope Paul VI banned the use of contraception 37 years ago, and at that time the issue was almost entirely birth control. Ever since, high church officials have considered the question largely to be closed. But the AIDS pandemic has led to calls from some corners of the global church for authorizing at least one form of contraception - condoms - as a means of preventing HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, from spreading.”
The author’s statement here, when taken to its logical conclusion, [color=red]implies that[/color] the Roman Catholic Church banned contraception in the late 1960’s. Therefore, the unsuspecting reader[delete comma] forms, at least subconsciously, two possible [color=red]conclusions[/color]:

1. The practice of artificial contraception was permitted and not banned by the Roman Catholic Church until 1968.

OR

2. The Roman Catholic Church did not have a specific and distinct moral teaching addressing the issue of artificial contraception until the development and introduction to the “pill” in the 1960’s.

[color=red]Of course, both conclusions would be incorrect[/color].  The truth is, that in 1968, Pope Paul VI published his Apostolic Letter “Humanae Vitae”1 (Latin, "Human Life"). Pope Paul VI did not institute a new ban on artificial contraception; He reaffirmed the historical and consistent position that the Church has held in its moral and ethical teaching regarding this subject:

“That it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.” 2


The Catholic Church takes moral teachings from the Nation of Israel and has thus, as did God instructed His people, opposed birth control from the dawn of creation.[/quote]
i corrected some wordiness in this section. also, this last sentence is confusing. we take our teachings from the Nation of Israel? most people will have no clue what that means, and the implication is that we borrowed our believes from someone else. so, i would strike that sentence.


[quote]There is at least one form of contraception specifically mentioned in Sacred Scripture and it is vehemently condemned by God. Coitus interruptus, was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother.
"Judah said to Onan,

‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a
brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’

But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also" (Gen. 38:8–10).

The fact that Sacred Scripture records that Onan’s offense merited the punishment of death illustrate that his crime was more heinous than simply refusing to fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law. God struck him down because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as "Onanism," after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as "Sodomy," after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19).[/quote]
i think this entire section is unnecessary. remember, your goal is to show that the Church's rejection of contraception is "historical and consistent." this is not the place for biblical commentary, even tho the bible is the source for our ancient belief. even the source is not the issue.


[quote]Today, many think that artificial contraception is relatively new because of advancements in modern medicine and technology.  They purport this attitude such that they can condemn the historic teachings on this matter as being “antiquated”, “old fashioned”, or just simply out of touch “with the times”. The premise for making accepting such a flawed sense of factual history finds its origin in selfish, emotionally motivated mindset, for which the principles of logic, reason, and faith are trampled by a primitive desire to enjoy the pleasure of sexuality without the risk of inadvertently conceiving a child and having to endure the pangs of a most inconvenient pregnancy. artificial contraception is anything but a “new” invention or even a new development in medicine.

Descriptions of ancient methods of birth control can be found all throughout history. Some of the writers tell of the usage of such devices as wool that absorbed sperm, poisons that fumigated the uterus, potions, and other methods were used to prevent conception. In some centuries, even condoms were used (though made out of animal skin rather than latex).

There are historic records of Egyptian women using a pessary (a vaginal suppository) made of various acidic substances (crocodile dung is alleged) and lubricated with honey or oil, which may have been somewhat effective at killing sperm. However, it is important to note that the sperm cell was not discovered until Anton van Leeuwenhoek invented the microscope in the late 17th century, so barrier methods employed prior to that time could not know of the details of conception. Oriental women may have used oiled paper as a cervical cap, and Europeans may have used beeswax for this purpose.3

Various abortifacients have been used throughout human history. Some of these were effective, some were not; those that were most effective also had major side effects. The ingestion of certain poisons by the female can disrupt the reproductive system; women have drunk solutions containing mercury, arsenic, or other toxic substances for this purpose. The Greek gynaecologist Soranus in the 2nd century AD suggested that women drink water that blacksmiths had used to cool metal. The herbs tansy and pennyroyal are well-known in folklore as abortive agents, but these also "work" by poisoning the woman. Levels of the active chemicals in these herbs that will induce a miscarriage are high enough to damage the liver, kidneys, and other organs, making them very dangerous. However, in those times where risk of maternal death from postpartum complications was high, the risks and side effects of toxic medicines may have seemed less onerous. It is also believed that black cohosh tea will also be effective in certain cases as an abortifacient.4

There are a multitude of additional examples that one could find regarding various efforts employed by women throughout history to avoid conception.  Regardless of the method or mechanism, the Catholic Church has always been in opposition to the very principle for which these efforts are cultivated.[/quote]
this entire section is unnecessary and should be cut out. the point is not to make a judgment of why people use contraceptives and why they reject Church teaching, or to give a history of contraception throughout the history of man. your point is to show that the Church's stance on contraception is not new to 1968. period.


[quote]If one cares to examine the history of the Catholic Church, it will be obvious from the writings of the earliest Christians, that the Church’s present position on contraception has not changed nor wavered from even prior to the first century A.D.[/quote]
with the words "if one cares" you imply that most people do not. even if that is true, it is not your place to say so. you can't assume that it is "obvious" either. try to take as much emotion and opinion out of this piece as you can. finally, if something is "prior to the first century" it is actually before the first century began. i'm assuming you meant to say "of the first century" or "prior to the dawn of the first century". at any rate, the first ECF you provide is from the [i][b]second[/b][/i] century. remember, the first century is 1 - 100.

i would change this beginning to: "If one examines the history of Catholicism, one will find that the Church rejected contraception long before the 1960's."

nice and simple, that's what you need


[quote]Take a look at how the Fathers of the early Church addressed and regarded efforts to prevent conception[color=red][period][/color]:

Clement of Alexandria
"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]).5
"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (ibid., 2:10:95:3).

Hippolytus
"[Christian women with male concubines], on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered" (Refutation of All Heresies 9:12 [A.D. 225]).6

Lactantius
"[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Divine Institutes 6:20 [A.D. 307]).

"God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital [’generating’] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring" (ibid., 6:23:18) 7
 
Council of Nicaea I
"[I]f anyone in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy" (Canon 1 [A.D. 325]) 8

Augustine
"You [Manicheans] make your auditors adulterers of their wives when they take care lest the women with whom they copulate conceive. They take wives according to the laws of matrimony by tablets announcing that the marriage is contracted to procreate children; and then, fearing because of your law [against childbearing] . . . they copulate in a shameful union only to satisfy lust for their wives. They are unwilling to have children, on whose account alone marriages are made. How is it, then, that you are not those prohibiting marriage, as the apostle predicted of you so long ago [1 Tim. 4:1–4], when you try to take from marriage what marriage is? When this is taken away, husbands are shameful lovers, wives are harlots, bridal chambers are brothels, fathers-in-law are pimps" (Against Faustus 15:7 [A.D. 400]).

"I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility. . . . Assuredly if both husband and wife are like this, they are not married, and if they were like this from the beginning they come together not joined in matrimony but in seduction. If both are not like this, I dare to say that either the wife is in a fashion the harlot of her husband or he is an adulterer with his own wife" (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17 [A.D. 419]).9

John Chrysostom
"Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before birth? You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well. . . . Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with his [natural] laws? . . . Yet such turpitude . . . the matter still seems indifferent to many men—even to many men having wives. In this indifference of the married men there is greater evil filth; for then poisons are prepared, not against the womb of a prostitute, but against your injured wife. Against her are these innumerable tricks" (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]). 10[/quote]
i would condense this section down to the most forceful testmonies, since you won't have room to include them all. Lactanius' second quote serves your purpose much better than the first. strike the Council of Nicaea, b/c some may not immediately see how it is relevant. the quotes from Augustine and Chrysostom are way too long. try to take just a sentence (two at the most) from each person. more modern testimony may help your cause as well, just to show consistancy. i think you should pick one or two from the early church, the medieval church, and the modern church before 1968.


[quote]The condemnation of artificial contraception from a moral, ethical, and theological viewpoint maintained even through the Protestant reformation. These tenants of faith were not only accepted but even taught by the earliest Protestant Reformers:

Martin Luther
"[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him." (Commentary on Genesis).11

John Calvin
"The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring." (Latin Commentary on Genesis 38:10.) 12

John Wesley
"Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he [Onan] did displeased the Lord—and it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls." (Commentary on Genesis)13[/quote]
since reformers cannot be considered a part of the Church, and since it is beyond the scope of this piece to even bring up the reformation, strike this section.


[quote]Protestant denominations have been in accord with and practice of, the Catholic Church’s teaching condemning contraception as sinful up until only about 75 years ago. Look at how the Lambeth Conference addressed this issue at their session that was held less than 100 years ago, 1920:
1920 Lambeth Conference of Anglican Bishops
“We utter an emphatic warning against the use of unnatural means for the avoidance of conception, together with the grave dangers - physical, moral and religious - thereby incurred, and against the evils with which the extension of such use threatens the race. In opposition to the teaching which, under the name of science and religion, encourages married people in the deliberate cultivation of sexual union as an end in itself, we steadfastly uphold what must always be regarded as the governing considerations of Christian marriage.”
(Resolution 68: Problems of Marriage and Sexual Morality)14

What a difference just 10 years and a worldwide depression can make; It can be the difference between night and day. In 1930, at the height of the Great Depression, The Anglican Bishops met again at the Lambeth Conference. 

Unfortunately, this time, due to social the mounting social pressures of the times, the Anglican church, wavered in its historical condemnation of contraceptive measures, and declared that contraception would be allowed in some circumstances.
1930 Lambeth Conference of Anglican Bishops
“in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.”
(Resolution 15: The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage and Sex) 15

Shortly there after, the Anglican church completely rescinded its previous condemnation and gradually permitted contraception as a “normative” and accepted means of “responsible stewardship” for the married couple. This declaration by the Anglican church led all other Protestant denominations to find artificial contraception to be acceptable and even recommended in certain circumstances.

In the United States, many states had existing laws that prohibited and/or curtailed the usage and sale of contraceptive products.  It wasn’t until the 1965 Supreme Court Case GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT, that these existing regulations against artificial contraception were declared unconstitutional.

MR. JUSTICE GOLDBERG, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN join, concurring.
“I agree with the Court that Connecticut's birth-control law unconstitutionally intrudes upon the right of marital privacy, and I join in its opinion and judgment. Although I have not accepted the view that "due process" as used in the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates all of the first eight Amendments, I do agree that the concept of liberty protects those personal rights that are fundamental, and is not confined to the specific terms of the Bill of Rights. My conclusion that the concept of liberty is not so restricted and that it embraces the right of marital privacy though that right is not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution is supported both by numerous decisions of this Court, referred to in the Court's opinion, and by the language and history of the Ninth Amendment. In reaching the conclusion that the right of marital privacy is protected, as being within the protected penumbra of specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights, the Court refers to the Ninth Amendment, I add these words to emphasize the relevance of that Amendment to the Court's holding.

The Court stated many years ago that the Due Process Clause protects those liberties that are ‘so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.’"
[GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT ;U.S. Supreme Court; 381 U.S. 479 (1965);Decided June 7, 1965.] 16

This statement begs the question of just what traditions and conscience of our people was he considering when he made his declaration in favor of artificial contraception.  It sure was not the historic position by which this nation had abided nor was it policy of those nations from whom our founders originated. It would seem to reason that this ruling, as unfounded as it is in historicity, gained its momentum from a frenzy of emotional considerations and the desire of the justices to arrive at an abrupt resolve to this most taboo of issues.[/quote]
this entire section is off topic. strike the whole thing. your giving us a commentary on the history of OTHER views on contraception and court cases on the subject. the topic of this is not the gradual degradation of church and societal views on contraception. you should concern yourself only with presenting the "historical and consistent" teaching of the Church.


[quote]In conclusion, it is evident from a careful study of history, that Pope Paul VI did not institute a new “ban” on contraception in 1968.  Humane Vitae was the Apostolic Letter in which Holy See was reaffirming the consistent teaching of faith and morals that transcends recorded history. The Catholic Church that has preserved, for thousands of years, this most ancient moral standard, and at present, the Catholic Church alone proclaims the historic Christian position on contraception. I will not elaborate at this time, but Humane Vitae contained in it 4 statements about what would be the result if societies were to adopt a “contraceptive” standard of mentality.  The four prophetic statements have all came to pass as will be easy to see in light of our present culture and the ominous accuracy of those predictions is becoming radically more profound.[/quote]
again, too much commentary. end it with your second sentence and call it a good job. the phrase "that transcends recorded history" is confusing, so strike that as well.


[quote]Thank you so much for your time.



Pax Christi,



The layman[/quote]
i was the editor of the opinion page for my hs and my college. if someone didn't provide their name, we never published their piece. this is b/c i have always felt that if someone is going to give us an opinion we didn't ask for, and if we are going to publish it, that person should at least be willing to stand up for what they beleive and sign their name. it is a cop-out to take a hard stance on something and then not tell us who you are. so, i say give your name, and be proud of what you have written.


[quote]FOOT NOTE REFERENCES
1 The complete text of Humane Vitae, may be obtained online at [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/...e-vitae_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/...e-vitae_en.html[/url]
2 Contraception is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14)
3 Excerpted from History of Birth Control, which may be found online at [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_control"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_control[/url]
4 Ibid.
5 Writings of the Early Church Fathers may be found online at  [url="http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/"]http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/[/url]
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
11 Charles Provan, The Bible and Birth Control, (Monongahela, PA: Zimmer Printing, 1989), 63
12 Ibid.
13 Ibid.
14 The Lambeth Conference Archives contains the record of all of the proclamations and decisions made at each Lambeth Conference that has been held, beginning in the latter part of the 19th century.  Please find this information online at [url="http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/arch...920/1920-68.htm"]http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/arch...920/1920-68.htm[/url]
15  Please find this information online at [url="http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/arch...930/1930-15.htm"]http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/arch...930/1930-15.htm[/url]
16 This information about GRIZWOLD Vs. CONNETICUT may be found on line at www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/ projects/ftrials/conlaw/griswold.html[/quote]
your references are not necessary and they won't be published. this is an opinion in a newspaper, not a scholarly work. instead, you should use in-text citations, which i will add below.


with all my corrections applied, your piece will read as follows:[list]January 23, 2005


Dear Chuck Leach:

I am writing to correct some information that appeared in an article in the Jaunuary __ issue by Daniel Williams of The Washington Post, entitled “pope upholds stance against condom use”.

The following quote in Mr. Williams' article is the primary correction that needs to be addressed: “Pope Paul VI banned the use of contraception 37 years ago, and at that time the issue was almost entirely birth control. Ever since, high church officials have considered the question largely to be closed. But the AIDS pandemic has led to calls from some corners of the global church for authorizing at least one form of contraception - condoms - as a means of preventing HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, from spreading.”

The author’s statement here, when taken to its logical conclusion, implies that the Roman Catholic Church banned contraception in the late 1960’s. Therefore, the unsuspecting reader forms, at least subconsciously, two possible conclusions: 1. The practice of artificial contraception was permitted and not banned by the Roman Catholic Church until 1968, or 2. The Roman Catholic Church did not have a specific and distinct moral teaching addressing the issue of artificial contraception until the development and introduction to the “pill” in the 1960’s.

Of course, both conclusions would be incorrect. The truth is, that in 1968, Pope Paul VI published his Apostolic Letter “Humanae Vitae” (Latin, "Human Life"). Pope Paul VI did not institute a new ban on artificial contraception; He reaffirmed the historical and consistent position that the Church has held in its moral and ethical teaching regarding this subject: “That it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence” (Humanae Vitae, para. ?)

If one examines the history of Catholicism, one will find that the Church rejected contraception long before the 1960's. Take a look at how the Fathers of the early Church addressed and regarded efforts to prevent conception:

Clement of Alexandria: "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]).

Lactantius: "God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital [’generating’] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring" (Divine Institutes 6:23:18)

Augustine: "You [Manicheans] make your auditors adulterers of their wives when they take care lest the women with whom they copulate conceive. (Against Faustus 15:7 [A.D. 400]).

John Chrysostom: "Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before birth?" (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]).

In conclusion, it is evident from a careful study of history, that Pope Paul VI did not institute a new “ban” on contraception in 1968. Humane Vitae was the Apostolic Letter in which Holy See was reaffirming the consistent teaching of faith and morals regarding contraception.

Thank you so much for your time.

Pax Christi,
Your Name
[/list]
i hope you are not offended by my forceful correction of what you have written. this is purely constructive criticism. let us know when they print it and how people respond.

pax christi,
phatcatholic