Realizing that this thread has potential to spiral all sorts of directions, I want to try to focus my question fairly specifically.

I am wondering what our very intelligent members can contribute to my historical understanding of how and when Humnae Vitae came about, if any Eastern (Catholic or otherwise) understanding of theology is evident within it, and the role it plays in the Roman and Eastern Churches today, as well as the Orthodox Church in general (not the document itself, obviously, but it's approach).

The reason that I am asking on the Byzantine Forum specifically is 1) it is very difficult to find reliable and unbiased sources, and 2) because while studying HV as well as the Papal Commission (which recommended to amend the Church's teaching) my attention was drawn to the Minority Report of the Commission's findings. Specifically, this argument to keep the Church's position unchanged (by I believe then Archbishop Wojtyla):



To me, this seems to subordinate the discussion of the morality of contraception to the purview of papal infallibility, giving cause to discuss it here in the same light.

What is the Eastern understanding of this, and do Latins feel that more clarification on the theology of this issue is warranted?

To be honest, I cannot make theological sense of HV.

The point of the argument you've highlighted goes quite beyond Pius XI and Pius XII.

I guess my suspicion is aroused by any suggestion that for 1900 years the Church, undivided, was unanimously wrong, and that it finally took Anglicans to shed a little light.

One of (and not the only) the appeals made to upholding the teaching on artificial contraception is to natural law, that certain acts, by their very nature, are intrinisically evil because they thwart the created purpose of an act.

Right, and that is the theology that I mentioned having a problem understanding in this regard, especially from an Eastern perspective, but generally from any perspective.

Did the Majority Report reject natural law?

Basically the approach is it's a private matter and there is no specific instruction one way or another.

Right, my question was whether HV and the Catholic teaching in particular has any sway in the Orthodox Church. I don't expect it, but figure it's worth including in the discussion.

I am sure there are individual Orthodox Christians whom follow the same ideas put forth in Hummae Vitae but I strongly doubt any Orthodox Church has adapted as its offical teachings.

I'm going to a course after Easter on Theology of the Body. I know Pope John Paul II expounded on Humane Vitae in TotB. Although I may not be able to give much feedback 'til July. When I had the 4-hour introduction, the last hour was spent on Humane Vitae. Perhaps Theology of the Body would clarify the things not so clear in Humane Vitae. I know then-cardinal Wojtila wasn't able to participate in Humane Vitae because he couldn't get out of Poland. But he set up his own commission and would later include his own findings in Theology of the Body.

I've never heard it discussed, but by the same token I've never heard the topic itself discussed. It's a pastoral matter.

My interest is twofold.

1) Understanding the logic of the theology from both a Latin and Eastern perspective. My mention of Orthodox was to try to subtly include their points of view in the discussion, I realize the document bears no weight in the Orth. Church.

2) Exploring the historical development of the doctrine. It really surprised me to read the majority and minority report of the papal commission convened to make recommendations, and the unfolding of HV thereafter. I'm not sure what to make of it.

Here's what "The Orthodox Christians for Life ProLife Handbook" page 29, says about one form of artificial birth control:

The newly accepted "contraceptive" Norplant, is a device surgically implanted in the woman's am which has a 5 year+ life-span. Norplant suppresses the production of ova in a woman by the use of the gradual emission of a low dosage of a particular hormone and in this action, it mimics the low-dosage birth control pill. Women who can't take "the pill" are advised to avoid this new product. The cost of implanting the five "match-stick" like receptacles will be on the average, about $300 according to most medical sources. Unfortunately, what is not said is that, failing to prevent production of the egg, Norplant makes the lining of the uterus hostile to the now-fertilized egg, causing a failure of implantation. Thus a woman may abort up to 60 children in one five year period and never be the wiser.
Finally, abortion is abortion is abortion whether surgical or chemical, and will be fought by those who value the sanctity of human life.

Fr Deacon Paul

The Ruthenian Pittsburgh Archeparchy marriage classes and pro-life office encourages Natural Family Planning, not artificial contraception.

jjp:

Christ is in our midst!!

Not everything that the Catholic Church teaches must to rely on papal or even ordinary infallibility. The Church possess an ordinary teaching authority given by Christ Himself so that what she teaches on the Faith and in the area of morals doesn't have to have such a profound stamp on it. See CCC, paragraphs 85 to 88; and other citations.

Bob

I realize that, but the Ruthenian hierarchy is not always known for its assertiveness in contrasting with Roman Catholic theology/doctrine, so I am not willing to stop there.

Nobody has ever been able to explain the theology of HV in a way that makes sense to me, I was only wondering if an Eastern perspective might add something. I don't think that it will.

Of course this makes sense, but the section I quoted seemed to be focused very much on exactly that. Otherwise, why the need to include it in the minority report?