What is an orthodox Catholic obliged to believe?

Rod, on the matter of abortion and abortifacients, the Church is very clear on what is permitted and what is not, ... To disobey the Church in this matter is most definitely a sin; if someone in this instance went with their feelings rather than the Church's teaching, and counseled a friend to use the pill, despite the Church, they would be party to the commission of the sin of abortion, and thus have committed mortal sin. Sentire cum Ecclesia.

This is a tough one. I would like to remind everyone that the first sin was disobedience. Without that it is obviously a slipperly slope to believing whatever one wants or makes one comfortable. Furthermore, I am sure that Vatican scientist are quite capable of understanding the science behind the morning after pill.

Bloody captcha, I hate posting under the gun. Anyway the ellipsis should say and it is taught infallibly. If the Catholic in question here believes that his own reason trumps the Magisterium, he should repent or if he cannot do this, it's time to shop for another church, since he's removed himself from a state of communion with the Church. This is something that can't be pulled out or ignored if one wishes to remain in the Church - if you do not believe the Church is what she claims to be, what's the point in staying around?

You're kidding, right?

First, if he believes the Vatican has erred in its biology on this one effect of the morning after pill, it should not affect his counsel as the Church's prohibition on artificial contraception is not founded in the commandment against murder. The abortive action of such chemicals, while in itself motivating many to avoid their use, is more in the nature of the fruit of the sin, rather than the root of it. Reading any elementary texts on the theology of the body would clear that one right up.

Second, this is the worst example possible to illustrate the question of what happens when scientific fact and religious faith seem to conflict (or maybe it's the best one, depending on your point of view). The first argument seems to be that no fertilized eggs ever got to the point where they would be prevented from implanting, therefore even if the drug degraded the uterine lining and made implantation impossible it would be moot. This is like saying that if you shoot a man who is falling after being pushed out a 20th story window it's not murder. Or, more accurately, that if you push someone out the window and someone else shoots him on the way down, you didn't actually do anything wrong.

The second argument is that we can't see whether the degraded lining has ever actually kicked any eggs out because the process of looking would kill the embryo. How that proves that the lining never has kicked an egg out is beyond me.

The third is that researchers now believe the lining may accept a fertilized egg after ovulation anyhow, despite the work of the chemical on it. This is interesting in that this used to be a selling point of the morning after pill. So, the salesmen may have gotten the pitch wrong, and the Vatican took them at their word. Still don't see how this amounts to the Church being ignorant.

All the sources for the "scientific" argument are, of course, clearly agenda driven, so I'm not sure why they are being used as raw material for the "scientific fact" side of things. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who gets their logic as mixed up as these guys do is likely not real sharp on the whole scientific method front. There's got to be better sources of info somewhere.

I do believe good, sincere religious people struggle with the question of how to make an organic whole of their beliefs in different realms. But this is just more propaganda, and it would seem that swallowing it would be a sign of very uncritical thinking or self-interested self-deception.

Are you saying/suggesting:

Bumper Sticker of a Good Fundamentalist Protestant: "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it."

Bumper Sticker of a Good Roman Catholic: "The Pope says it, I believe it, that settles it."

I understand the question in general but not why the morning after pill is included in the question.

There are two issues I have mulled over in terms of "is the Church right." One is contraception of the barrier kind (condoms) which does not induce abortion. After all, if it's ok with the church to engage in temporal contraception (natural family planning), why not spatial (condoms).

The other issue is one in which I have had some heated arguments with fellow Catholics. I'll accept the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God because the church says it's true, but it's also something that, after the birth of Jesus isn't a matter of importance to me. My Catholic friends were upset with me because I questioned why, when the Bible doesn't state that Mary remained a virgin in perpetuity, it was so important to an entire church, that she did.

The second issue is my Mottramism. I'll accept it as truth although it doesn't matter to me personally whether or not it is.

A Catholic, as such, is required to believe all and only the deposits of the faith.

That is the one and only correct answer.

I know that people like you, Rod, (ironically not actually a Catholic) like to apply a stronger standard of adherence to whatever Rome has decided this week it has always thought for centuries, and to tell the rest of us that we aren't proper Catholics if we don't agree, but that's an *epic* Theological Fail right there. There's no such thing, in any official sense, as an "orthodox" Catholic, so there can be no necessary test of membership for same.

And if there were, you would be in no position to apply it.

but Ross believes that the Vatican has reached an incorrect conclusion

Well, he wouldn't be the first. The Church has been clear on this matter. I'm not really sure why he is conflicted as he doesn't explain. If he agrees with Saletan's conclusion that the morning after pill is a contraceptive then, as a Catholic, he should understand why the Church opposes it.

So what you are counseling our hypothetical Catholic based on Ross Douthat here, toro toro, with regards to the Church's teaching on the morning-after pill?

"If the Catholic in question here believes that his own reason trumps the Magisterium, he should repent or if he cannot do this, it's time to shop for another church, since he's removed himself from a state of communion with the Church."

that's insane. what you're saying is that it's impossible for the church to ever be factually wrong, or, if it is, then you are required to say that the emperor has clothes after all or "shop for another church".

"The first argument seems to be that no fertilized eggs ever got to the point where they would be prevented from implanting, therefore even if the drug degraded the uterine lining and made implantation impossible it would be moot. This is like saying that if you shoot a man who is falling after being pushed out a 20th story window it's not murder. Or, more accurately, that if you push someone out the window and someone else shoots him on the way down, you didn't actually do anything wrong."

huh? first, there is ZERO evidence that plan B allows fertilization at all. people don't get this. plan B is basically a high dose of ordinary birth control, and it operates by (1) preventing ovulation, and (2) failing that, preventing fertilization.

since the crazy christians, to remain at all logically consistent, must insist that "life begins at conception", they're bound by that same maxim, however stupid it is in reality. therefore, no fertilization = no "life" = no christian argument against it.

that is unless, like the poor, hidebound catholic hierarchy of "heterosexual", "celibate" men, so obsessed with the one thing they're denied, the one thing that drives most men so (and you better believe it includes those "celibate" priests), you insist that you have some authority to govern when and how people reproduce. it's sad.

"The second argument is that we can't see whether the degraded lining has ever actually kicked any eggs out because the process of looking would kill the embryo. How that proves that the lining never has kicked an egg out is beyond me."

what a sad argument. one can never prove a negative. it's impossible. you must present evidence (although you cannot, since none exists) of what you claim to be true, not demand that such CANNOT happen.

"The third is that researchers now believe the lining may accept a fertilized egg after ovulation anyhow, despite the work of the chemical on it. This is interesting in that this used to be a selling point of the morning after pill. So, the salesmen may have gotten the pitch wrong, and the Vatican took them at their word. Still don't see how this amounts to the Church being ignorant."

this isn't true. william saletan at slate wrote a great post about this recently. there is no evidence of what you claim. too bad the church didn't look closely in the rush to villify something that will PREVENT ABORTION. yeah, real abortion. not "conceivably fertilized" ova. chopped pieces of fetuses getting vacuumed out. you, know, the stuff that got this whole awful ball rolling 36 years ago.

what a nightmare. please, righteous religious "folk": stop. you don't get to force your religion on the rest of us, no matter how right you think you are. stop. just stop. we have much, much bigger problems than what goes on in others' bedrooms.

I don't see the problem for Ross here. He (rightly, I think) disputes the Vatican's understanding of the Morning-After Pill, claiming that it is not, in fact, an abortifacient. But if not, it is still unquestionably a contraceptive, and the Catholic Church teaches that one should not use contraceptives. So Ross' path is clear: he should counsel his friend against using it.

And anyway, does the Church teach that it's infallible on all matters of fact and science? No: It claims to be infallible on matters of faith and morals. If the Church teaches that the Earth is the center of the universe, a Catholic does not have to believe it. Why? Because the Church was indisputably wrong when it held that position -- but it was an error unrelated to faith and morals.

Life does not begin at conception.

At one point life "began." Since then, life continues.

A sperm has "life." An ovum has "life." A zygote has "life."

Living things interact with other living and non-living things, living things die and are absorbed by other living and non-living things, living things are born from living and non-living things, etc.

Some would call it "the circle of life," but they'd get sued by Elton John and Tim Rice. ;^)

that's insane. what you're saying is that it's impossible for the church to ever be factually wrong Spot on, what? You got it in one. ; )

Come on, people, did you actually bother to read and comprehend Saletan's post, before jumping in to rehash tired, unsupported assertions?

Re Steve K's According to the Church, there can be no licit use of such a thing, even if it did not kill babies, because it is designed to render the sexual act unfruitful . . . so, if a priest is about to rape a girl, and he plans to use a condom, she should beg him to take it off first, since otherwise SHE will be committing contraception, and SHE will be committing a sin? If you are raped, and you use Plan B to avoid pregnancy, in what way have YOU been responsible for a sex act? If you did not instigate nor consent to the act, how can you be considered responsible for "contracepting"?

Re Lisa's reference to "the degraded lining" . . . Actually, a uterine lining that is not currently open to pregnancy is normal during most of a woman's cycle. It isn't "degraded." Unless, of course, you think that a woman's only valid function is to serve as a vessel for pregnancy and if she isn't carrying that out, she is somehow "degraded."

I hope you'll continue to clarify your arguments that a rapist is actually more virtuous if he makes sure to impregnate his victim, and that the victim owes it to herself and God to get pregnant if at all possible.

Lisa @ 1:18, thank you for that precise and well delivered strike at the nail's head.

A Catholic is required to believe that the Magisterium cannot make errors in matters of faith & morals. But it seems to me that a good argument can be made that the sticking point here is not a matter of faith & morals but a matter of biology.

A good analogy may be early term abortion. Now, the Church has always taught that abortion is always wrong. But the early Church taught that early term abortion was a less serious sin than late term abortion because the Church had an incorrect understanding of human biology and based its teaching off of the premise that life begins at "quickening." At some point (18th or 19th century?) human knowledge of biology advanced and the Church became aware of the fact that human life begins at conception not quickening. So now the Church teaches that early term abortion is just as grave as late term abortion.

This need not trouble the orthodox Catholic at all. The Church was in error on a matter on which that the Magisterium is not protected from error (biological facts) but was not in error on a matter on which the Magisterium is protected from error (the right moral interpretation of biological facts).

I see no reason why Ross isn't free to disagree with the Church on this matter if his disagreement is based on a conviction that the Church got the science wrong, not that the Church got the moral theology wrong. Now, as others have pointed out, contraception is still a grave sin according to Church teaching so its mostly an academic question, but an interesting one nonetheless.

In general I think American Catholics are all messed up on matters of dissent. Most fall into either the "I don't care what the Church says" camp or the "anyone who disagrees with a single line in the Catechism is not a Catholic" camp. Both are a little bonkers. The "good" Catholic should always be troubled by feelings of dissent. It should always be uncomfortable, deeply unsettling even, when one finds that one honestly disagrees with the Church and one should take steps to think and pray on the matter as long as the disagreement remains.

But the same Magisterium has also magisterially said that it gives enourmous respect to human conscience. And further, there is a matter of proportionality here. If you can say the Creed honestly and confidently then that's a huge assent to Church teaching. It may well not be "enough" to be in full communion with the Church, but its a helluva start and its absolutely 100% not the right answer to tell someone who can do so to take a hike if they find that they honestly struggle with a more minor Church teaching. The Magisterium acknowledges a heirarchy of Truth after all as well.

Rod, I'm just medieval enough to raise the question of whether it's entirely obvious whether the definition of "abortion" is a medical/scientific one, or a moral one. That is to say, could it be that the church actually does get to decide what an "abortion" is, regardless of the physiological operations of various methods? I suppose the scholastics could have fun with that one.

More seriously, I could give the advice you propose. But I'm not under an obligation to actually believe (as opposed to merely consent to) what the church says on faith and morals, and I do believe Catholics are. And that's part of why I raise the question above -- is the question of "what is an abortion," when answered by the church, a medical question, or a moral one? If it's a moral one, Ross is stuck.

sigaliris - you know, if posted a hypothetical that was deliberately written to goad Catholics, you might just get an answer. Can't help yourself, can you?

My confidence in the ability of the Church to teach Truth was shattered utterly and for all time when Pope Wojtyla rehabilitated Galileo. I had after much study of physics and astronomy come to the conclusion that Galileo had been wrong and the Church had been right. In Faith I sought Understanding. Now both Faith and Understanding are in tatters. I no longer believe either in the rising sun or the Risen Son. Henceforth, it's Cynicism seeking Skepticism for me.

Uh, angry gay anti-Catholic dude who keeps assaulting us with long posts lacking capitalization, if you are honestly interested in learning more about the Church's teachings regarding the sex act and artificial contraception I recommend you read Humanae Vitae and then read the recent reissuance of John Paul II's Theology of the Body.

This is basically a non-issue. No point of the Church's moral teaching regarding contraception or abortion hinges on the accuracy or inaccuracy of the CDF's assessment of the state of scientific understanding of how morning-after pills work.

"Life does not begin at conception. At one point life 'began.' Since then, life continues."

A human life begins at conception. A sperm or an ovum does not represent a human life.

"Uh, angry gay anti-Catholic dude who keeps assaulting us with long posts lacking capitalization, if you are honestly interested in learning more about the Church's teachings regarding the sex act and artificial contraception I recommend you read Humanae Vitae and then read the recent reissuance of John Paul II's Theology of the Body."

yes, i'd love to hear more. please guy with a pretentious handle who resorts to junior high taunts (seriously? "gay"? laughable), tell me why, in precise terms, trying to avoid conception is okay sometimes ("birth regulation" via "periodic continence") but not others (a condom or for that matter plan B). use reason, not obtuse citation of the titles of authorities.

Sadly, Steve K., it isn't a hypothetical that priests have raped and impregnated girls. I wish it were. Probably most priest-rapists didn't use condoms, though, so you needn't lose your faith over it.

Ross Douthat: "Everything that I've read on the subject suggests that Will Saletan has it right, and the Vatican has it wrong."

Rod asks what Ross (as a good Catholic) should do. First, he should keep reading more on the subject. Second, he shouldn't take the controversial Mr. Saletan so seriously. Saletan is a political writer, not a trained bioethicist.

"yes, i'd love to hear more. please guy with a pretentious handle who resorts to junior high taunts (seriously? "gay"? laughable), tell me why, in precise terms, trying to avoid conception is okay sometimes ("birth regulation" via "periodic continence") but not others (a condom or for that matter plan B). use reason, not obtuse citation of the titles of authorities."

Because periodic continence does not place any artificial barrier to the sexual act. Birth control puts up a barrier (chemical or physical) and interferes with the natural action and result (and potential).

Elegantly and biologically straightforward.

to be consistent, it seems, the church should say that people are NEVER allowed to govern their sexual habits for the purposes of "birth regulation" absent some exigent circumstances.

That is the Church's teaching with the caveat that artificial contraception is intrinsically immoral independent of circumstances.

"to be consistent, it seems, the church should say that people are NEVER allowed to govern their sexual habits for the purposes of "birth regulation" absent some exigent circumstances.

That is the Church's teaching with the caveat that artificial contraception is intrinsically immoral independent of circumstances."

no it is NOT.

catechism of the catholic church:

"2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.157 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, 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" is intrinsically evil:"

let's unpack this bit of tripe.

"Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality."

hmmm. sounds to me like the church is saying "you may concentrate your humping temporally so as to reduce the risk of impregnation". right? nah. i'm sure it's saying something entirely different from what the (almost) plain language, you know, says, because that would undermine this:

"In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, 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" is intrinsically evil"

which is garbage. short of sterilization, no birth control method, no matter how rigorously followed, makes procreation "impossible". none. you know that. therefore, by using the church's own terse statement of catechism, we see it's logic falls apart like a house of cards. it makes no sense. "ye may avoid the fertile parts of the menstrual cycle like the plague, but hump ye all ye desire otherwise. but, ye shall not use a condom, because it is somewhat more effective at preventing pregnancy, and that is intrinsically evil."

intrinsically evil? what language! i wonder if the holocaust is considered "intrinsically evil"?

"If we found out tomorrow every morning after pill in the country was made of nothing but sugar, it still would not have changed the fact that a person using one to try to stop an egg fertilized during a chosen sexual act from implanting and living has done something gravely wrong."

but that isn't even what happens with plan B. people don't take plan B for the reason of "abortion". they take because it's an emergency "contraceptive". they're different things. stop lying.

"But the original writer seems to think that direct observation is necessary to prove the morning after pill effectively aborts an implanted egg, and that’s sophistry."

hysterical! that's what you need to do to show your position is true! that's called "scientific inquiry", not "sophistry". do you even know what "sophistry" means?

"If, for example, I can prove that a chemical will slough the lining of the uterus 99% of the time within 30 minutes of its administration inducing menstruation, I can use reason to determine that a sexual act two days before resulting in the implantation of a fertilized egg will have ended in an abortion."

uh, there's a glaring hole in your "logic" - "to determine that a sexual act two days before resulting in the implantation of a fertilized egg will have ended in an abortion."

you have to show that part too! the fertilization and implantation part! are you for real?

"I’m afraid I am not likely to accept your paraphrases of the Church’s teachings as accurate, and I hope no one unfamiliar with the topic does so. Read up on it without a predetermined conclusion in mind and you might see it differently."

i did. i even use the church's orwellian term "birth regulation". this is a joke. and yes, read catechism of the catholic church sec. 2370. read it closely. and i quoted directly.

I have not read all the above and I don't know who Ross is, but my experience as an Orthodox covert is that the application of the Church's teaching to our personal lives is a pastoral issue. The person's priest, spiritual adviser, and/or confessor should be helping them making that call with all awareness that they will have to answer to God for their council.

Also, resorting to biological details is no answer. The desire to control conception is what is at issue (between the person and their spiritual councilor).

"short of sterilization, no birth control method, no matter how rigorously followed, makes procreation 'impossible'."

Semantic/philosophical confusion. It is because of the limits of human knowledge that we say something is "possible" when what we really mean is that we can't exclude it as a possibility. That doesn't change the fact that if we stop something from happening, we have in fact rendered it impossible.

Suppose a murderous assailant is approaching your house in the dark, and you shoot a half-dozen shots into the darkness in his general direction. Someone says, "Is he still coming?" You say, "It's possible." What you mean is that spray of bullets is not sufficient for you to be SURE of having incapacitated the attacker. That doesn't mean the attacker is still actually capable of reaching the house. If he is dead, or paralyzed, it is quite impossible that he should do so -- and, indeed, your actions were undertaken in the hope of rendering it impossible. That this impossibility is merely a hoped-for effect rather than a known and guaranteed effect doesn't change that.

Likewise, all methods of contraception are undertaken in the hope of rendering pregnancy impossible in any given month.

Some people take the morning after pill as a contraceptive, some to produce an abortion. Whether it can accomplish either end is irrelevant, morally.

Scientific inquiry is not limited to making judgments about the world based solely on direct observation. We cannot directly observe a distant star, only the light that reaches us from it after centuries. It is less accurate to draw conclusions in this manner, but no progress could be made without doing so. I think I know what sophistry means -- essentially making an argument for the sake of winning a point rather than determining the truth, what the Sophists in decline were accused of doing? Do I have it wrong? It does happen.

Showing fertilization and implantation can be done, but again it is not through direct observation. Most gals are satisfied to buy the crib after the EPT says certain chemicals are pregnant, they don't have to actually see the implanted embryo with their own eyes.

In my comment on on paraphrasing I was referring to a use of the term "rhythm method", which is not offensive but does usually indicate a certain POV about the method. But, yes, I see that you quote the catechism. And then go on to tell us what you say it means. The two things don't match up at all, in my reading.

My point is not that I have to be right about everything (although I sure love to think I am) but that so much of what is in the article accusing the Vatican of ignorance is so easily taken to pieces that this is not a good example of how someone could feel a conflict between convincing factual arguments and his faith, is all.

St. Thomas Aquinas, who is usually pretty reliable on these matters, made the issue quite clear when he said, "It is better to die an excommunicate than to violate one's conscience." Even a direct command from the pope cannot justify violating one's own conscience.

As a Catholic theologian, I believe that the Church is infallible on matters of moral principle, but may err in any particular application of those principles. So it depends on what one is rejecting, the principle or the application. In rejecting the principle, one is usually on dangerous ground, but is still bound by one's conscience. Disagreements in application are common and are of a different quality than disagreements over principles.

Concerning disagreements in principles, the faithful Catholic is bound to make every attempt to form one's conscience according to the demands of the Church. Before rejecting any doctrine, one must first make every attempt to understand it on its own terms. After all, you can't really reject what you don't really understand. But if, after a sincere effort to reconcile with the Church's position, one cannot do it, then one MUST follow the conscience rather than the Church. However, the authority of one's conscience extends only to the person involved, and one must not use that authority to teach what someone else ought to do.

Disagreements in application depend on circumstances and factual matters and how one interprets them. To use myself as an example, I believe the Church has the facts wrong in the matter of persons in a Permanent Vegetative State (PVS), and hence comes to the wrong conclusion. I believe that after some reasonable period of time, care of PVS persons falls into the category of heroic measures, which may legitimately be refused. I have no wish to re-open a discussion on the Terry Schiavo case here, I merely think that it is possible to believe that the Church spoke with more confidence than the facts of the case warranted. This is an example of a disagreement about the application of principles rather than a disagreement about the principles themselves.

I would tend to look at such issues in the same way I would treat the statements of the Ecumenical Councils: infallible in spirit, not in the letter. Chalcedon, for instance, presents the constitution of Christ in terms of a modified version of the ancient Greek metaphysic categories of substance and persona. Does that mean that all future Christians are bound to adopt that ancient Greek metaphysic? I surely hope not, since very few people, even professional theologians and philosophers, has much of a grasp of its finer details. I don't think that modern people, philosophers or theologians or the common person in the pews, needs to hold that metaphysic, but they are required to affirm the theological truth that has been expressed within that metaphysical framework.

Likewise, if the Vatican or any other authoritative body makes a claim that is in part based on this or that scientific theory, that doesn't mean we need to hold that the science is infallible and unchangeable. If the science advances beyond that point, or if it is just shown to be plain wrong, no Catholic should be obligated to adhere to the "letter of law," but only to the "spirit." How does the goal and intention of this teaching fit into our newere, clearer scientific understanding? is what we should be asking.

Time and time again in the documents of Catholic social thought, the popes and bishops make distinctions between the principles they're laying out and the implementation of those principles, which is to be left to those who run governments and who have the knowledge required to best implement the teachings. Bioethics should work similarly, I would think. Leaders can make pronouncements about the principles the Church upholds, but it should be humble about the precise details of scientific theories, and if a qulified person disagrees with the Vatican's understanding of science, there may be other ways of implementing the principles than what the Vatican has officially taught.

Hattio:

"would it be immoral for the Catholic being asked this question to explain that he believes the church is wrong on the science, but counsel the person not to use the MA pill because of the importance of obediance?"

The primary reason for not using the MA pill is that it is contraceptive, and contraception is wrong. To the extent that someone is willing to obey the Church, that should be enough; if it isn't, a Church statement about abortifacient effects that one disagrees with scientifically is hardly likely to add additional incentive to obey.

"What if you knew the person was likely to take the pill if you explained your counsel that way, but was unlikely to take it if you didn't clarify WHY you thought they should not take it? Does the moral obligation not to lie come into play anywhere here?"

I'm not sure I follow this. I'm a big believer in offering reasons and being as candid as possible. Like St. Augustine said, God does not need my lie.

"My second question is this. I know that sometimes teenage girls who have bad acne problems are given the pill in order to help clean up the acne. Is this okay?"

IMO, messing with hormones in this way for something like acne is probably a bad idea medically; however, therapies that have contraceptive side effects can be licit given a sufficiently serious condition. In such a case, the contraceptive effect should be viewed as harmful and unfortunate. It would be wrong to desire the contraceptive effect for itself.

Someone above said that a person in this circumstance should abstain from sex while on the pill; obviously, she should abstain from sex anyway if she's unmarried. If she is married, I can't see that there is a moral obligation to abstain from sex while on such a therapy, though I could see someone choosing to do so to express her complete disavowal of the contraceptive effects. (OTOH, if she would be willing to conceive if not for the contraceptive side effects, why should she abstain?)

Indeed, Loudon is a Fool. That would be the only principle by which the use of EC would ever even theoretically be justified. The way I've seen it discussed is like this: if the woman may engage in self-defense against her attacker, even to the point of using lethal force against him if this is possible, then she may also attempt to defend herself from the possibility that pregnancy will result.

However, any putative baby is NOT her attacker and is actually also a victim of his/her father's hideous actions. So while the use of methods to *prevent* pregnancy following rape may indeed turn out to be morally licit (though I don't know if a definitive statement exists), there is no moral justification to use a method which may, even theoretically, end the life of a human being already developing.

Immediate medical attention following rape, even without the use of EC, already seems to lower the chances that the victim will become pregnant with her attacker's child. I still think that instead of splitting all kinds of hairs about whether a Catholic can ever recommend EC in the event of rape, though, we would be better served to focus on teaching women how to avoid being raped and how to fight off any unarmed attackers; so many women are raped by men they know (73% of all victims, I believe).

"And if I were to become fully convinced that the Church was in error on faith and morals, which is to say, that the Church was not what it claimed to be, then I would abandon it and not skulk off into a corner and pout about why the mean old bishops want to make me believe mean old things. Just leave!"

and that is a big reason why the church is imploding. enjoy, mean, old bishops utterly obsessed with what you have voluntarily relinquished, as you ever have been. enjoy your continued slide into irrelevance, screeching ignorantly about condoms while the world burns down around you.

The ready pledge of allegiance to 'science' wilts under the scrutiny of minds like Paul Feyerabend, who so ably demonstrates that the 'scientific' conclusion is often no more valid than the conclusion of members of other 'tribes.'

We need not genuflect when scientists reach consensus; it merely means that like minded people are reaching similar conclusions to which their training pre-disposes them.

Scientists use a reductionist model which abandons much of what Feyerabend terms the 'abundance' of reality. It addresses only portions of reality that it can bend to it's techniques.

But then too, there's no such thing as a single scientific method. Perhaps my favorite iilustration is the case of astronomy, where only observation is permissible. We can't devise an experiment wherein a black hole is crashed into by a quazar in the presence of a gaseous planet, and so on.

And then there's Newton vs. Galileo. Newton taught that gravity is a constant, while Galileo taught that gravity varies with the distance from the center of the earth; at different heights, gravity is actually minutely different. So which giant of science is in error, Newton or Galileo?

Which giants of reproductive science are in error today? I think that scientists must chuckle up their sleeves when they see theologians genuflect to their ideas, knowing how insubstantial some of them are.

Posts by Your Name at 4:42 and 5:05 are mine. And hasn't somebody between them got their nose out of joint! Time to take a pill and lie down?

Saletan's post to the contrary, there is actually some suggestive evidence that emergency contraceptives have a post-fertilization effect some of the time. It is evident, for instance, that EC does not prevent ovulation 100% of the time (hence the 20% failure rate) but does thin the endometrium at a time (ovulation) when it would normally be thickened. There have been interesting articles in the Annals of Pharmacotherapy and the ARchives of Family Medicine- both peer-reviewed medical journals- which examine the statistical evidence behind the mechanism of action of these hormones.

When reading articles about abortion in American medical journals, it is good to keep in mind that there is a strong editorial bias in favor of abortion rights. It is not only the Vatican that one has to suspect of bending the evidence to reach a certain conclusion! Some of the authors that Mr. Saletan sites, for example, are affiliated with Planned Parenthood and are heavily into the promotion of contraceptives. Also, the pharmaceutical companies that market EC are not interested in determining if their drugs have a post-fertilization effect: they only want to know if the medication does what most people care about: preventing a clinically diagnosable pregnancy.

This is a complicated question and I do not think either Saletan or Douthat did the foot work in forming their consciences.

let's return to some saner posts, like Nate's of 4:15. The problem with the "spirit" vs. the "letter", or the moral "principle", is that all we poor humans have in common is the "letter", ie the actual words used. You may think you understand the "spirit" of the Greek metaphysical distinctions of substance, person, essence (or their original Greek nouns), but if those words don't mean what they used to mean, then your understanding of the spirit of those declarations is just your opinion. You would need to put them into words that we all understand and have a common definition thereof. How likely is that?

Similarly, I see here a lot of ruckus about what is "regulation", "control", "contraception", and "abortion". I don't see anybody defining their terms, which asyouknowBob is the first prerequisite to intelligent discourse. Besides which, the whole argument about what the science is moves away from the original question of what kind of "obedience" an "orthodox" RC needs to have to the proclamations of the Pope.

It's better to ask what is an orthodox RC's relationship to the Magisterium, or the teaching authority of the Church, which at least is defined for us as belonging properly only to the episcopacy (as long as the Bishop of Rome is with them), said definition being the definition of said episcopacy.

I think Erin has it figured out best--it's pretty clear that the episcopacy consistently has taught that whenever they speak "infallibly" an orthodox RC is obliged to accept such teaching (unless, as pointed out above, it clearly goes against your well-informed conscience). Barring an infallible teaching, an orthodox Catholic should give a magisterial teaching about faith and morals the assent of mind and will.

So if the Pope (speaking with magisterial authority) says "Plan B is really abortion (ie causes the death of a human being), and abortion is wrong, so you can't use Plan B", then that's a teaching about science, and he could be wrong. If he says "Plan B is really an illicit contraceptive (ie creates a physical barrier to the possibility of a viable fetus), and illicit contraceptives are wrong, so you can't use Plan B", then that's partly science, so if he gets that wrong you don't have to belief it, but if it might be right then it's more about moral intent, and in that case the magisterium gets to have the assent of mind and will.

I think the Pope and bishops should read this blog more often so they know how to correctly teach whatever it is they have in mind.

So it depends a lot on what the Pope actually said--the letter of the law is the only important thing.

By the way, it is not that the Church has misunderstood basic reproductive science, but that her sources lead her to a different conclusion about the mechanism of action of a drug (with moral implications) than the American Medical Association.

The distinctions made between different possible MOAs of oral contraceptives are, in my opinion (I am a physician), quite sophisticated.

Just a note regarding the infallibility question--teachings on faith and morals are only understood to be infallible when they are explicitly "from the chair." As far as I know, the Church claimed no infallibility in the controversy surrounding Galileo, nor has it regarding the issue of contraceptives and/or abortion (though someone may correct me here). The Church teaches that insofar as artificial contraceptives define a willful intention to interfere with and (so far as is possible) make impossible the event of conception, they are against the sanctity and dignity of the conjugal act. This does not apply to the conjugal act during natural infertile periods since these periods reflect, in effect, God's will that every sexual act not result in pregnancy (otherwise, women of child-bearing age would be fertile all the time).

As to the hypothetical that Rod posed--an orthodox Catholic would do well to counsel his or her friend to seek judgment from a pastoral authority whose office is to counsel in just such matters. That is, at the risk of sounding like Pontius Pilate, one would do well to say to one's friend--I'm not qualified to advise in this case.

Finally--as to the back and forth regarding the morning after pill and pregnancy. The Church does not base its teaching regarding either contraception or abortion on when pregnancy begins, but when life begins--which it has been very clear about, even in the U.S. quite recently. Life begins at conception. So, it's immaterial, morally, to worry over "fertilized eggs" attaching to uterine walls . . .doesn't enter into it from the Church's point of view regarding the beginning of life.

Is an orthodox Catholic bound to assent to a teaching of the Church even when he believes that the Church is in error? I don't know--although depending on the question, one would wonder how the adjective "orthodox" applies . . .

gregbo...you are wrong

Many Catholics today will tell you: "It does not matter if I follow the church's teaching on abortion or contraception. Vatican II said that all that matters is that I follow my conscience. I am a good person and I have prayed about this issue deeply and I just don't agree with the church. Besides you only have to listen to the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra."

There is a lot to address in this statement including the nature of the Church but I will mainly focus on one issue for now. Ever since the end of Vatican II there has been a lot of conjecture about what the council meant to mean. We are lucky though. We don't have to guess, we can simply read the documents that were promulgated with the council. One of the four constitutions that was promulgated was called: Lumen Gentium (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church).

Lumen Gentium 25 states:

"Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra;"

A conscience must be formed. A conscience must seek truth, it is not merely personal opinion. I won't go into detail on the nature of the Church but if you read "Crossing the Threshold of Hope", John Paul II talks about how we profess belief in the Church in the creed. That the Church is meant to continue Jesus' ministry on earth: baptizing, forgiving, offering sacrifice and even teaching! As Catholics we believe that the Holy Spirit aids the Church in each of these ministries and that we are to be faithful.

FDS and others commonly refer to the package insert of Plan B (TM) and the listed mechanisms of action - which include "Altering the endometrium, which may inhibit implantation". It should be pointed out that the manufacturer of Plan B did not do any research on the mechanism of action of Plan B and neither did the company whom they bought Plan B from - Women's Capital Corporation. Plan B's statements in the package insert come from research done in the 1960's with regular birthcontrol pills containing estrogen - which Plan B does not. The link included with my comments is a recent review of the literature in which all Plan B specific research shows only pre-fertilization effects of Plan B as the mechanisms of contraception efficacy.

As an aside, the medical literature has shown a post-fertilization contraceptive effect of regular breastfeeding. What does one do with that knowledge?

Re: As an aside, the medical literature has shown a post-fertilization contraceptive effect of regular breastfeeding. What does one do with that knowledge?

Indeed. Lactation is a natural suppressant of fertility, and was used as such by hunter-gatherer tribes throughout history. The contraceptive pill was intended to act through imitating natural hormonal changes in the woman's body, which is one of the reasons why I cannot accept the argument that it is unnatural; another is the fact that, for environmental reasons, I think that population regulation is important (and happens, to some extent, naturally in many species through hormonal responses to overcrowding). Yes, I've read Humanae Vitae and that other encyclical from the '30s, as well as the arguments of dissenting Anglicans at Lambeth 1928, and I find them unconvincing. Condoms are a different case, and I might be able to be convinced that those are against nature.

Never understood the "unnaturalness" distinction myself, since such sacraments as marriage are "unnatural" as far as anything can be inferred from the natural world. Why should "natural" be normative? Homicide and infanticide are equally a part of the "natural" repertoire of behaviours seen in higher animals, yet the Church gets hung up about the "unnaturalness" of condoms? Where did they get the divine operating manual that mentions contraception? And don't drag the corpse of Onan into it, since God killed him for his spite of his deceased brother. So retroactive abortion is OK for God and a true guide to his truth?

Bah! Humbug!

Zena--I completely agree. In speaking of following one's conscience, I assume "well formed." And we have an obligation--to wit: Your Name (8:01pm)'s admonition to read the documents of Vatican II (I have) and "Threshold of Hope" (a gift shortly after it came out to me, from my dad). So I'm not sure, except to say I wasn't very clear, how Your Name and I are in disagreement--unless the respondent thinks that I believe that the docs of Vat II give us license to decide that whatever we decide, because it's a matter of conscience, constitutes a disposition arrived at as a result of having a "well-formed" conscience. Which I don't. I'm more inclined to believe that esp. post Vat II (C)atholics who use this as a rationale to disregard teachings willy-nilly as a matter of "conscience" are actually acting on appetite. But I do agree that we are bound to be swayed by bishops in communion with the pope on matters of faith and morals--even in areas of scientific uncertainty--so long as the pastoral office exercised at the local level really is in communion with the Magisterial teaching of the Church. And deciding this is no small feat at times. But it is our obligation as a "priestly" people to be humbly discerning.

Hector: The contraceptive pill was intended to act through imitating natural hormonal changes in the woman's body, which is one of the reasons why I cannot accept the argument that it is unnatural

Adam: Never understood the "unnaturalness" distinction myself, since such sacraments as marriage are "unnatural" as far as anything can be inferred from the natural world. Why should "natural" be normative?

"Natural" has nothing to do with mechanism. "Natural" has to do with what you are doing with yourself, with your intent. If you are having sex while deliberately intending actively to make that particular sex act infertile, then you are having "unnatural" sex.

If, on the other hand, you are having sex with your spouse and you are not intending to make that sex act infertile, then you are having "natural" sex - i.e. complete, whole, fitting-in-with-the-proper-orientation-of-the-couples-towards-one-another-and-in-self-gift-to-each-other sex.

If you're raping someone (or being raped) then no one's having natural sex anyway and the principles re. contraception do not apply. (Abortion, of course, always does, since it involves innocent life.)

I read with interest DonD's link to the page with "a recent review of the medical literature". The most interesting article was one which claims that pregnancies with Plan B only occurred when hormonal analysis indicated that ovulation had already happened. Actually, this proves nothing, since their definition of pregnancy probably does not equate with "conception", which is after all what all this is about.
It's a useless document anyway- published by Family Health INternational, a viciously pro-abortion group. Most of the studies cited were published in "Contraception" and the document appears not to have been published in a medical journal- a good recipe for bias.

One is not obliged to believe the Pope is a sage in all manners and things of science, but he is endowed with infallibility in teaching the Church concerning moral problems, which means that if he proposes a solution to a moral problem, the solution will not possibly cause one to sin if it is followed. That doesn't mean the scientific or historical premises of the solution might not be right in so far as they do not concern spiritual and moral issues. The Pope is no more certain to be right about the date of an event or the outcome of a scientific experiment than you or I.

I have no idea as to the science of hormonal contraceptives, not being a reproductive scientist. I do personally know people who have become pregnant while taking the birth control pill, having a nephew to show for it. So obviously the pill and its kin can fail in all its supposed attributes of preventing ovulation, fertilization and implantation and allow a pregnancy to occur. If that's true, it doesn't seem farfetched to think it might only fail in certain parts of its effect, for example, everything up to the prevention of implantation.

People who believe that Plan B birth control drugs are acceptable for anti-rape purposes are confusing seperate actions. The rape itself is morally reprehensible and can be vigorously defended against while it is occurring. But if an embryonic child is conceived by the act, the child is now a peaceful inhabitant of its mother, and not a violent attacker, and cannot be attacked at all. If there is any possibility, HOWEVER UNLIKELY OR REMOTE, that the Plan B drugs cause abortions by preventing implantation, it is morally illicit to use them, because the direct intention of using these drugs is for them to work in all their effects - preventing ovulation, conception, AND implantation.

I was going to make an extremely long post, but I think John Médaille got it pretty much perfectly correct with fewer words than I would have used. I would strongly agree with him.

I do disagree with Erin when she says, Anyway, those who think that NFP is just like artificial contraception also must believe that dieting is the same as binging/purging, right? A more accurate analogy would be comparing procreative sexual intercourse to normal eating, NFP to periodic fasting, and artificial contraception to drinking or eating non-caloric beverages or food (or even chewing chewing gum). Consider: the argument against artificial contraception is, in brief, that it sets the reproductive system in motion while frustrating its natural end (reproduction) artificially (as opposed to voluntary abstinence, which is the basis of NFP), in order to have the pleasure without the possibility of life. Well, consuming non-caloric foods or chewing gum sets the digestive system in motion while frustrating its natural end (nutrition) artificially (even chewing gum is artificial in that it is not swallowed, just chewed, the taste of the gum and the pleasure of the chewing being the sole end, with no nutrition envisioned. Analagous to masturbation, perhaps?), in order to have the pleasure without the possibility of nutrition. It may seem like I'm being facetious, but I'm deadly serious here. By the logic typically used against artificial contraception (that it separates the unitive and procreative ends of sex, rendering it teleologically incomplete and thus in violation of God's will in the natural law, and thus is mortally sinful), I really can't see how one can argue that chewing gum is not mortally sinful, in that it separates the gustatory and nutritive ends of eating, rendering it teleologically incomplete and thus in violation of God's will in the natural law, and thus is mortally sinful.

Having said this, I am inclined to think that the Church is right in the big picure that the contraceptive mentality as it now exists tends to lead to anti-natalism and an instrumental view of children and family; but on the other hand, I tend to agree with the majority of the bishops consulted by Pope Paul VI when he was preparing Humanae Vitae, who believed that artificial contraception could be legitimately used by married couples for proportionate reasons as long as the marriage as a whole was open to life.

I would also point out that Catholic doctrine has in fact changed many times, ususally glossed over as "development of doctrine". Most of the early Church Fathers believed that all non-procreative sex was mortally sinful, and thus would have rejected NFP as vehemently as birth control pills. Additionally, these same Fathers believed that even procreative sex was venially sinful. Not even the most hidebound traditionalist would argue these things now! Of course, the Magisterium gets around this by arguing that those beliefs (along with Limbo, the sinfulness of usury, and on and on) were never infallibly defined; but then again, in the strictest sense, neither was Humanae Vitae. I don't agree with Society of St. Pius X and V types and their ilk, but they are actually more correct in strict logic when they point out that the Church has, in fact, changed doctrines over time (at least, for them, since Vatican II) while denying that they actually have done so.

Don't get me wrong; I don't think the main doctrines (e.g. the Creed) are subject to change; I do believe in infalliblitiy (in a very limited and highly nuanced way); and I do think development of doctrine is a valid idea. On the other hand, denying actual history and simple logic are not good for anyone, Catholic or not, orthodox or heretical.

Andrew: Many theologians have taught that married couples should have a minimum of 4 children, as only this many will provide children to replace the parents, children to make up for married couples who are naturally or unnaturally infertile, people who never marry and bear children, and children to provide the Church with Priests, Monks, and Nuns.

Name some such theologians.

A couple that has had at least four children...before nature renders the wife infertile...has satisfied the requirements of distributive justice, and is not under any obligation to provide society with more offspring. They being free then to do as they wish, the Church says they may regulate their future reproduction using natural means that satisfy the requirements of sexual morality, such as the rhythm method.

1. So if a couple intentionally have fewer than four children, they have not satisfied distributive justice, and are presumably sinning?

2. Does the "future of the human race" allow for the fact that different countries have different birthrates, so that even though the birthrate may be at or below replacement in some countries, the global average may be above replacement? Should couples take this into account in determining how many children they "should" have?

3. I refer once more to my previous posts as to my skepticism as to the arguments advanced against artificial contraception.

My understanding is that there is a variety of certainties with which the church proposes teachings, ranging from:

"we're completely sure: you must give intellectual assent", to

"we're almost completely sure: you must obey but you need not believe",

"we're mostly sure: you need not obey yourself if you seriously doubt but you shouldn't set yourself up as an apostle of doubt to others", to

"this is our best guess: go ahead and argue publicly as long as you're clear that this is the official position", to

"this is a lovely idea but we don't really know: believe what you want".

There is a long defunct blog of a theology student who talked about how there used to be manuals where you could actually look up which level any given teaching was considered to be. Here is the link:

http://old-oligarch.blogspot.com/2004_06_01_old-oligarch_archive.html#108607823599737056

And it's a clear indication that human sex serves purposes not involving procreation. Therefore there is nothing "unnatural" about having sex when procreation is not the object.

Notice I said "intend." You are correct: there's nothing "unnatural" about having sex when procreation is not the explicitly intended object. There is something "unnatural" about having sex while actively trying to make that sex infertile.

The point is that we don't get to define the actions of our bodies to mean whatever we want, willy-nilly. The actions we do in the body "mean" certain things naturally, that is, without needing the imposition of our abstracted intentions.

Tumarion:

Yes, the theologians who advocate a numeric norm do take into account that the fruitfulness of the human race is currently more useful, in, say, empty lands such as Australia or Canada or Russia, as opposed to overcrowded lands such as India or China. Some theologians, rather than promoting a numeric norm use a norm of a certain number of years of the use of the rhythm method between conceptions, for example 5 years.

Here's a couple: "MORAL THEOLOGY, JOHN A. McHUGH, O.P. and CHARLES J. CALLAN, O.P., REVISED AND ENLARGED BY EDWARD P. FARRELL, O.P.", also "Contemporary Moral Theology, by Fathers John C. Ford, SJ and Gerald Kelly, SJ, volume 2, Marriage Questions"

The latter write: “There may be difficulty in determining the exact limit for various countries; but certainly today in the United States a family of four children would be sufficient to satisfy the duty. ... Verbal acceptance of the theory was expressed by a great majority of some thirty moral theologians who discussed it at Notre Dame in June, 1952, on the occasion of the annual meeting of the Catholic Theological Society of America.”

Not to beat a dead horse, but it occured to me that I should put my money where my mouth is and do at least a little bit of lifting to back up my statements about the Fathers and the Church's change of stance on the permissibility of even naturally non-procreative sex. The following quotations are arranged below the links whence I got them, emphasis added.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FKBCONTR.HTM

Augustine: "For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting [children] is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity no longer follows reason but lust."

"In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children."

"For, whereas that natural use [sexual intercourse], when it pass beyond the compact of marriage, that is, beyond the necessity of begetting [children], is pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of a harlot...." (Note carefully--sex for procreation is pardonable for a wife!)

"For thus the eternal law, that is, the will of God creator of all creatures, taking counsel for the conservation of natural order, not to serve lust, but to see to the preservation of the race, permits the delight of mortal flesh to be released from the control of reason in copulation only to propagate progeny." (Nothing about unitive here!)

http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Abortion_Euthanasia/Abortion_Euthanasia_004.htm

Clement of Alexandria: "Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom should take as our instructor. (So much for NFP!)

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." (So much for the unitive....)

Also, this site makes a very cogent argument for the outright change in teaching regarding the unitive aspect of marriage and the permissibility of sex in infertile periods. Granted, the author makes these arguments in the context of arguing for the permissibility of gay relationships, with which I would disagree on other grounds; but his argumentation on the point in question seems pretty sound and well-documented to me.

Adam,

Re: "Natural" has nothing to do with mechanism. "Natural" has to do with what you are doing with yourself, with your intent. If you are having sex while deliberately intending actively to make that particular sex act infertile, then you are having "unnatural" sex.

Rendering that particular sex act infertile is exactly the same purpose with which people use natural family planning. (Which, to give the Catholics credit, can be quite effective if used properly. It is the most common method of birth control in contemporary Poland, which has a fertility rate below 2.0).

So we can assert that contraception is analogous to natural family planning in terms of intent, and analogous to lactation (and other natural, spontaneous hormonal changes) in terms of mechanism. Therefore, it seems to me that chemical contraception cannot be said to be unnatural or intrinsically evil, since neither the mechanism nor the intent is intrinsically unnatural. Contraception can, of course, be _used_ for evil ends as well as good ones- a married couple who doesn't wish to have even one child, because it would cramp their lifestyle, is in my opinion commiting a sin, as is a promiscuous person who uses condoms to facilitate a string of one night stands.

The fact that the anti-contraception argument has relied on so many different arguments over the years (see the dissenters at Lambeth '28 and their burblings about 'race suicide') suggests to me that the arguments are individually rather weak.

I certainly don't intend to come off as disrepectful here. I think that the Catholic teaching on birth control and sexual morality is false. But it is false in an interesting, well-reasoned and weirdly compelling way, and it is of course _less_ false than the teaching of much of modern society that would endorse pornography, whacking off, 'swinging' and other perversions. At least in modern America, the Catholic church also does more good by militating against abortion than they do harm by militating against contraception.

Your Name,

Yes, I'll bet that the Catholic church will be around in another two thousand years. I suspect that it will have changed its position on contraception, as it has changed its position (in the last ten years or so) on, say, the continuing validity of the Jewish covenant. (Would Chrysostom have approved of John Paul's statements on the Jewish covenant? Please.)

Loudon is a Fool: NFP as taught (i.e., as an effective method for regulating births) is problematic as it does frequently tend to exclude, by intention, the procreative aspect of the sex act.

The beauty of NFP, as noted a few years ago by H.W. Crocker, is that it doesn't work. So the scared young Catholic couple may be duped by their diocesan NFP teacher into viewing NFP as an effective method of regulating births, but shortly into their marriage for a variety of reasons they let nature take its course.

I take it from this that you concede that the Church, or at least its representatives in this country, have dissembled on the issue. In fact, you seem to concede that the whole thing, as taught, is a con!

What?! The argument for contraception is the argument for sodomy?

The point wasn't the source, but that Pharsea does, in my opinion, a good job of pointing out the changing teachings on this issue, which the Church denies to have changed. I think one could argue for responsible contraception for proportionate cause by married couples and still make an effective argument against homosexual behavior.

Catholic couples who hold to the Church's teachings regarding marital relations are no doubt more likely to make full use of their marriage every day (excepting those on which the wife is unclean) (emphasis added)

I find the phraseology interesting here.

[T]he teaching of Humanae Vitae is that they are not required to have sex every day of their marriage as long as they are generally open to life. That strikes me as a pretty reasonable teaching. Maybe even one to which St. Augustine could assent.

I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty familiar with Augustine, and I'd tend to disagree on this.

The effects of artificial contraception are divorce, loose women, abortion, small materialist families, the ubiquitous porno culture, near universal acceptance of the homosexual subculture as normative, the social security crisis and global warming.

Granted (except I'm not sure about the global warming part!); however, detailing the ills of alcoholism is not an argument for being a teetotaler. The ills of a contraceptive culture are not necessarily arguments against prudent use for proportional reason by married couples.

But I think you're kidding yourself if you think you can have a marriage generally open to life that makes use of artificial contraception.

Well, that's the $64 question, isn't it? Obviously not all would agree. As to the quality of NFP or contraceptive marriages, I would reserve judgment until I saw third-party, neutral, longitudinal studies. Anything short is anecdotal.

Sometimes the Church is right, even when its argument as to why could use further development.

Granted--and sometimes it's wrong. Generally, if I have fifteen different arguments for X which need "further development", it is less effective than one really good argument. Given its changing teachings on sexual morality and, frankly, the outright denigration of even marital sexuality that prevailed in its circles until the middle of the last century, I think the Church better do a lot better job of developing arguments (especially ones it changes again and again) if it expects to be taken seriously.

Generally, if I have fifteen different arguments for X which need "further development", it is less effective than one really good argument. Given its changing teachings on sexual morality and, frankly, the outright denigration of even marital sexuality that prevailed in its circles until the middle of the last century, I think the Church better do a lot better job of developing arguments (especially ones it changes again and again) if it expects to be taken seriously.

This is a bit unfair. The need to develop a robust teaching regarding artificial contraception doesn't become necessary until the invention of effective artificial contraception. It's possible that prior to the introduction of the pill a husband and wife could abuse the marital act, and there exists dicta from numerous saints on that subject. But the pill, with alarming effectiveness, eliminates the procreative aspect of an otherwise normal looking sex act. The invention of the technology requires a more detailed analysis of the teaching in this area. John Paul II's theology of the body provides a very sophisticated start to this development, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that it might take some time to determine how best to explain the established principle.

As to comparisons with alcohol, it depends on whether an unnatural sex act is more akin to an unnatural sex act or gluttony. I suspect that, although the desire to engage in an unnatural sex act may be a species of gluttony, an unnatural sex act is most akin to an unnatural sex act. Hence the alcohol analogy is inapplicable. Comparing an unnatural sex act to drunkness is closer, but still, it's probably best to analyze an unnatural sex act as an unnatural sex act.

Is a fertilised egg human?

And, like a California Condor egg, is it deserving of our protection?

Or not?

I meant Turmarion. My apologies.