Talk:Humanae vitae

message: 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)
replies: text:  Dave, consider spelling: not "condomned" but condemned as opposing Natural Law. Joefaust (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Wasn't Humanae Vitae written by Pope John Paul II?  Correct me if I am wrong.
BrainyJaney 21:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Question:

message: 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)
thread_title: Categories

message: 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)
replies: text: SOunds good, I have no objection. The.helping.people.tick 14:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Common Misunderstandings" section 

message: 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."L'Osservatore: Paul VI Never Looked Back: Vatican Paper Remembers "Humanae Vitae", 25 July 2008
*Marax (talk) 02:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul VI's response 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Highlights 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reception 

message: 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)
thread_title: Other unpopular encyclicals

message: 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 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)
thread_title:  Issue issues 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Legacy 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Commission vote in 1966 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Padre pio