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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joefaust (talk • contribs) 04:02, 13 January 2018 (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)

Requested move 26 May 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The only responses oppose and considering the related discussion I just closed has a consensus that is directly applicable to this it would not make sense to have a different outcome here. (closed by non-admin page mover) ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 23:09, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

---

Humanae vitae → Humanae VitaeHumanae Vitae – The official Vatican website capitalizes the title. natemup (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: related discussion at Talk:Magnifica Humanitas.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:39, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose The encyclicals are named after the first words of the Latin (official) version, which in this case are "Humanae vitae". We are not obliged to otherwise follow the Vatican's reference style.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I should think the Vatican is the final (and only?) authority on the name of Vatican documents. natemup (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

See also https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05413a.htm and https://www.britannica.com/topic/encyclical, which list the titles in sentence case, unless one of the words is "Patris", "Deus", etc. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose: Title case looks beater for English speakers, but unless we're willing to overhaul the status quo on all encyclical articles of encyclicals to be consistent, I say we just leave it the same. I will note however that when encyclicals such as In Plurimis are mentioned in the references section of the English version of Pope Leo XIV's first encyclical, they are in title case. The problem with using the Vatican as a style guide authority is that they don't care all that much about little details like case to always be consistent e.g. the website's file title capitalizations for Pascendi Dominici gregis are different for its Latin & its English versions. That's why it's more important that we have our style guide and are consistent. Theo wiki user (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.