Talk:Humanae vitae

Apparent contradictory statements "most" or "all"
Found in the version Jan. 12, 2018, 6:51 p.m. version are two phrases that seem contradictory: "the rejection of most forms of artificial contraception." and the "its prohibition of all forms of artificial contraception". Is it "most" or "all"? Of course, an all situation would support a most situation; but "most" has sometimes a connotation of not all; shall we clarify HV's position relative to this question; is there at least one case of artificial contraception that is not prohibited by the HV? HV notes that a therapeutic procedure (hence an artificial procedure) to cure a bodily disease absent of intent to interrupt the procreative aspect of the conjugal act would not be considered at all illicit; so, there can be artificial ways of preventing conception that are not illicit, so long as the ways are not directly intended to interrupt the procreative potential of the conjugal act. So, "most" would stand; and "all" should be removed; but care should be taken to represent HV rightly on the matter in order not to confuse a reader. See paragraph "15" of HV for precise language. '''Will a senior editor care for this matter in the article? '''

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


 * Barrier method is condomned as contrary to nature. That is the root of all Catholic teaching on birth control.  What is at issue is how God created the universe.  Anything contrary to God's plan is sinful.  This would, therefore, include birth control, abortion, euthanasia, etc.Davescj 09:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)dave
 * Dave, consider spelling: not "condomned" but condemned as opposing Natural Law. Joefaust (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Question:
Wasn't Humanae Vitae written by Pope John Paul II? Correct me if I am wrong. BrainyJaney 21:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)BrainyJaney
 * It was issued by Paul VI. Some of the theory in it was developed earlier by Wotylja in "Love and Responsibility," but I think that is the extent of the connection. Mlouns 02:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Also: In 1995, John Paul II wrote the encyclical EVANGELIUM VITAE, which reaffirms, and expounds upon, the teaching on contraception and abortion. LotR 17:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality?

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

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


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

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


 * I agree with the previous comment -- I'm not sure how this statement violates POV, especially considering the tone of the first 3 paragraphs of the section, which one may argue are in opposition to the Church's teaching. High speed digital basal thermometers are a necessary technology, not available in 1968, that has led to the improved success rate of the sympto-thermal method. I've done a quick look over the internet on the success rate and admittedly there is some variation. However, all indications are that, when correctly followed, the sympto-thermal method attains a significantly higher success rate than the old rhythm method available in 1968. The success rate of any method of "birth control" will certainly factor into its acceptance. One of the better sites I found is: http://www.naturaltransition.com/avoiding-pregnancy.htm LotR 21:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "The document in question is released by the magesterium and requires that Catholics submit faithfully to its directives, even if they don't agree with it." Actually, that is not the case.  Teachings of the Ordinary Papal Magisterium should be read, studied, prayed over and given the benefit of the doubt.  But, after doing that, if one can still not accept it, one should follow one's own conscience. Jhobson1 15:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Canon 752 of the Code of Canon Law defines the response owed to the ordinary papal magisterium (bold added): "Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it." -- Cat Whisperer 15:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm throwing up a NPOV tag. This is probably the most controversial papal encyclical of the modern era and this article has mostly vague mentions of any criticism. What little is specific is mostly buried. I think it is probably just the way the article is currently organized and written (pretty poorly) but the tone of article reads very pro-Vatican to me. A separate Criticism section might clear things up a bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.84.128.203 (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm questioning the NPOV tag, or at least the reasoning. The article definitely lists many criticisms from specific peoples, organizations, and publications.  I just partitioned the 'highlights' section with a new section called 'response and criticism', and it can be seen there are many more criticisms than assenting POVs.  I don't think the NPOV tag is warranted, and I'd like to continue this discussion further.  If there is no response or dissent, than I will take the NPOV tag off in a week.  Noodles Addiction (talk) 14:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, it's been about two weeks, with no response either way, I'm taking off the tag. Noodles Addiction (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


 * Ah, interesting point, about reactions. But then that is where our confusion lies: when you say "history" you mean "historical reaction" rather than "its own prestory".  Now I get it.


 * I would then suggest that Pius's material should be referred to in the reception section. That would be plausible, as many do misread his material as such.  (If that is what you were trying to say earlier when I said you misspoke, I apologize, and now understand your point).  A lot of the other material you just added should be reorganized in a similar way, although I would prefer to reword some of it for clarity and conciseness in the process.


 * I am in full agreement with your opinion, BTW, as would every other good faith editor here (so no need for apologies). Just trying to write a better article, that's all.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 21:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * I would suggest that any writings/events that influenced the writing of HV be included in the history section. The commission is the obvious example.  It is not clear to me that the Dutch Catechism did.  (To be fair, I have never heard of it, although as it seems the state of its imprimatur is quite ambiguous, I have to doubt it played any influencial role.)  Use as a contrast in describing reception seems good if it can be sourced.  I would choose to tone back the description of this and other comparators (i.e., Pius's addresses) however, as they can be (and are) properly described elsewhere.


 * The issue with Wojtyla seems merely an editorial one; he clearly influenced the document but sources differ exactly how. Saying "he had a hand in its drafting" (for example) seems a safe statement, although surely we can do better.


 * Actually, upon reading Witness to Hope, it seems it has a lot of material regarding Wojtyla's contributions, and, pointedly, also the lack thereof.  I'll have a go to summarize it, hopefully soon; there is some good material there.


 * I appreciate your request as some of the most fulfilling writing I do is to consolidate the writings of others into one smooth narrative. I'll do what I can.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I cleaned up a lot of your additions per request. I hope you agree it reads much better.  I like where the Dutch Catechism is discussed, since it seems only important after the fact.  I will get to Weigel later, but agree that is a great source.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 05:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Paul VI's response
I've added this because I think this section is presently quite inadequate in expressing Paul VI's response to the dissent:

On June 23, 1978, weeks before his death, in an address to the College of Cardinals, the Paul VI reaffirmed his decision concerning Humanae Vitae, "following the confirmations of serious science," and which sought to affirm the principle of respect for the laws of nature and of "a conscious and ethically responsible paternity."


 * Marax (talk) 02:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Highlights
I am wondering whether the encyclical is actually copyrighted or not.

If it is copyrighted, then
 * does the encyclical itself give everybody permission to copy from it, and
 * if not, then
 * do we have permission to reproduce it here, or
 * do the quotes here constitute fair use?

I might also comment that the tone of this article is substantially at odds with the point of view of many other articles in Wikipedia, and they cannot possibly both be neutral at the same time. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 00:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure about copyright, but in any event, any quotes in the article ought to be clearly indicated as such with proper credit given. Also, not sure what you mean by the tone of the article being at odds with other articles. LotR (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

In the US, USSR and Western Europe, this encyclical received a mainly critical reception. In Eastern Europe, Southern Europe and Latin America, the encyclical was highly welcomed. The article attempts to give credit to both sides. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Vatican documents which are copyrighted have usually the label attached: Copyright © Libreria Editrice Vaticana This applies especially to documents of the pontificate of John Paul II, who invented this counter-productive policy  and Benedict XVI. This label Copyright © Libreria Editrice Vaticana is NOT attached to the encyclical Humanae Vitae on the Vatican Website. This means, that the long quotes may not violate Vatican copyright. They should be re-written anyway, because of their lenght, and arbitrary selection. The quotes do not represent or summarize the encyclical, only certain parts of it, without explanation why they were selected--Ambrosius007 (talk) 10:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Reception
The article states that after the encyclical, "some lay Catholics" continued to use artificial contraception. Sociologist Andrew Greeley found that Catholic use of artificial contraception in the US matched that of the general population, that the encyclical was in fact almost completely ignored by the American laity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.213.86 (talk) 06:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Other unpopular encyclicals
It would be interesting if the article could mention other encyclicals or papal documents that were highly unpopular among mainstream Christians when they were first promulgated. Possible examples include In Eminenti Apostolatus forbidding Masonic sects, Vix Pervenit condemning usury, Syllabus Errorum on socio-political liberalism and Pascendi Dominici Gregis on radical biblical criticism. ADM (talk) 09:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Issue issues
Hello. I took the not very bold step of correcting an error often made when identifying the publication of encyclicals; that is to say I changed the word "promulgated" (two instances), for it is only laws that are promulgated (see, e.g., Code of Canon Law, | canons 7 and 8. The Latin speaks of "litterae encyclicae datae", which is to say "letters . . given", and that is precisely how the encyclical ends in the English translation: "Given at St. Peter's, Rome, on the 25th day of July".  "Given" would not, however, be a normal way of referring to publication in everyday English, and of the various options I chose "issued" because it was already used twice in the article with reference to the publication of the encyclical.  One of the instances of "promulgated" was in the caption to a photograph which raised no problems, but in the lede there was a stylistic difficulty caused by the close occurrence of "issued" and "issues". One option would have been to use the word "dated" for "promulgated" here, but on reflection it seemed that the lede had not captured the essence of the encyclical by saying that it confirmed traditional Catholic teaching "regarding abortion, contraception, and other issues pertaining to human life". This would be a precise summary of John Paul II's 1995 encyclical |Evangelium vitae which deals with abortion, euthanasia, contraception, techniques of artificial reproduction, and so on. But Humanae vitae has a much narrower focus, and although abortion is referred to once, it would not be a fair analysis to say the encyclical deals with abortion as such: in fact, it deals with abortion only to the extent that it is used as a means of restricting birth (§14). I therefore, somewhat boldly, changed the lede to reflect the specific focus of the encyclical on married love (§§8f., 11), responsible parenthood (§11), and the unlawful (§14) and lawful (§§15f.) means of regulating birth. This, I hope, restores the balance in presenting an encyclical which all too often is treated as being entirely negative in content, whereas its message is positive. Ridiculus mus (talk) 01:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Legacy
The text begins with this rather mangled sentence:- "Although polls show that many Catholics dissent from church teaching on contraception,[43] some 98 percent of women have according to one report,[44] there has nevertheless been a resurgence of support for it in certain quarters."
 * Footnote [44] is the citation of an account issued in February 2012 by a White House spokesman as to his understanding of the content of part of a report published in April 2011 by the U.S. based Guttmacher Institute relating to contraceptive usage by women in the USA.
 * On 22 June I deleted the ungrammatical and misleading passage reading "some 98 percent of women have according to one report,[44]" and justified the deletion on the grounds that the passage was an "incorrect and misleading summary of highly disputable report on artif. birth control usage by USA Catholic women".
 * The disputed phrase failed to note (1) that the subject was women in the USA who self-identified as Catholic and who had ever had sex, and (2) that the issue was very precisely those who had ever used artificial contraception at any point in their lives (not those who are currently using it).
 * Thus, it is not the case that the Guttmacher report establishes that 98% of Catholic women use artificial contraception, still less that 98% of Catholic women dissent from the teaching of the Catholic Church on the subject.
 * In fact, the Guttmacher Institute itself, in a press release dated 15 February 2012, addressed "some confusion about various aspects of the research that produced this statistic" stating, inter alia: "The above statistics on women who have ever used contraceptives are not to be confused with data on women who are currently using contraceptives". See http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2012/02/15/index.html (retrieved today).
 * The very same day I made my edit, SarekOfVulcan undid it on the grounds it was pov. I dispute that claim and propose, once again, to delete the incorrect and misleading (as well as ungrammatical) passage for all the reasons set out here.
 * In an attempt to avoid an editing war, I have made my views known here at length and suggest SarekOfVulcan review and digest them (and, if need be, address them here in Talk) before mechanically undoing my edit a second time. Ridiculus mus (talk) 06:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Humanae vitae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5xI2Wz6n5 to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The Commission vote in 1966
I don't see anything on the Commission vote. The Commission was set up by Pope John and included cardinals and bishops, medical experts, etc., and:
 * " It found the use of artificial means of contraception was not intrinsically evil and that Catholic couples should be allowed to decide for themselves whether to use them or not."

A minority report by 6 of the members found that:
 * "...the church should not and could not change its teaching on the matter."

 This recent Irish Times article covers the ground once more.78.16.92.128 (talk) 12:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Padre pio
Padre Pio's last letter was to the pope on Humanae vutae it can be added in response. 131.193.136.102 (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)