A Brief History of Birth Control

[Gabriela]

 

Thoughts?

I'm wondering in particular about the papal decrees mentioned...

[truthfinder]

Well here's the relevant Wikipedia excerpt which positions the decree mentioned in the bigger scope of historical historicalness: (side note - Kramer, as listed below, was a German inquisitor, which really helps put all of this in perspective)

It gave full papal approval for the Inquisition to proceed "correcting, imprisoning, punishing and chastising" such persons "according to their deserts". The bull essentially repeated Kramer's view that an outbreak of witchcraft and heresy had occurred in the Rhine River valley, specifically in the bishoprics of Mainz, Cologne, Trier. as well as in Salzburg andBremen, including accusations of certain acts.^[4]

The bull urged local authorities to cooperate with the inquisitors and threatened those who impeded their work with excommunication.^[5] Despite this threat, the bull failed to ensure that Kramer got the support he had hoped for, causing him to retire and to compile his views on witchcraft into his book Malleus Maleficarum, which was published in 1487. Summis desiderantes affectibus was published as part of the preface of the book, implying papal approval for the work.^[6] However, Malleus Malificarum received an official condemnation by the Church three years later, and Kramer's claims of approval are seen by modern scholars as misleading.^[7]

The bull, which synthesized the spiritual and the secular crimes of witchcraft,^[8] is often viewed as opening the door for the witchhunts of the early modern period. However, its similarities to previous papal documents, emphasis on preaching, and lack of dogmatic pronouncement complicate this view.^[2] Some scholars view the bull as "clearly political", motivated by jurisdictional disputes between the local German Catholic priests and clerics from the Office of the Inquisition who answered more directly to the pope.^[9]

 

Essentially, the bull just reinforced that witchcraft was a crime that should come before an ecclesiastical court and follow the same procedure - which did not mean automatic execution. 

I will also add that even in the Roman era there was a connection between those who practiced state-sanctioned paganism to those who devolved into unapproved witchcraft that was often connected with 'pharmikea' (that's a definite misspelling) which was often associated with spells to make others infertile as well as bring about abortions.  According to scholars, it was an abiding theory in the Graeco-Roman world that the purpose of sex was solely for procreative reasons.  The reality of calling 'witch' was just as real in this time as it was in for example Salem.  

Hopefully, this helps; otherwise keep asking questions

[Gabriela]

Well here's the relevant Wikipedia excerpt which positions the decree mentioned in the bigger scope of historical historicalness: (side note - Kramer, as listed below, was a German inquisitor, which really helps put all of this in perspective)

 

Essentially, the bull just reinforced that witchcraft was a crime that should come before an ecclesiastical court and follow the same procedure - which did not mean automatic execution. 

I will also add that even in the Roman era there was a connection between those who practiced state-sanctioned paganism to those who devolved into unapproved witchcraft that was often connected with 'pharmikea' (that's a definite misspelling) which was often associated with spells to make others infertile as well as bring about abortions.  According to scholars, it was an abiding theory in the Graeco-Roman world that the purpose of sex was solely for procreative reasons.  The reality of calling 'witch' was just as real in this time as it was in for example Salem.  

Hopefully, this helps; otherwise keep asking questions

​First, you are amesome.

Second, let me make sure I'm clear: This video took a document written by a Catholic priest and declared it "Church doctrine" even though the Church actually disapproved of it. And the specific moral position in question wasn't even "invented" by the Church, but by ancient pagans, who were right about something for once, but according to the video, it was all made up by the evil Church.

Yes?

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Pope innocent may have decreed that, good on him, but when that dude qouted pope innocent pope innocent didn't actually say such practises where punishable by death " correct, imprison, punish and chastise" where the holy fathers words. The 1st commandment is though shalt not kill and every pope has stuck to it except perhaps the 2 or 3 evil ones that my fssp priest told me and he made pertinently clear '2 OR 3' pretty good record out of the amount of popes we have had, the only time the killing law is void for a catholic is in the case of Just war doctrine, that's my understanding anyway. And breaking a commandment is punishable by ex communication by the way otherwise known as chastisement.

 

Hope that helps.

 

Onward Christian souls.

 

Jesus is LORD!

[Nihil Obstat]

That is not the first commandment.

[truthfinder]

Tab's first sentence is correct.  The rest is a bit on the contested ground - the traditional understanding is that the state, and even the church, had the right to execute under certain circumstances - although these circumstances do seem to change over time.

 

Anyways, Gabriela - Innocent published the document that was just a confirmation of what had been going on - that witchcraft/contraceptive promotion did fall under the jurisdiction of the Church.  The priest then took that letter as a approbation of his own work, which was quickly condemned.  So while witchcraft and contraception could indeed be punished by execution, according to the practices of most inquisition courts, there were many other, and more desirable steps.  

[Gabriela]

Then... the Church did punish contraception with execution at one point in time, just not ideally?

Did She think that contraception was witchcraft? Or were they just punishable by the same consequence?

[truthfinder]

Then... the Church did punish contraception with execution at one point in time, just not ideally?

Did She think that contraception was witchcraft? Or were they just punishable by the same consequence?

​I'll preface this by saying that the Inquisitions are far outside my wheelhouse - and the Germanic one is probably the furthest.  I do not know what the statistics on punishment for contraceptives were - I would suspect that is would often be the provider of these tonics that would be the focus of inquisitorial interest.  Further, just because the church could punish did not always mean it did.  As to the link between witchcraft and contraception - this would probably come down to the case itself.  There were definitely those who would have said their tonics were the result of witchcraft.  Others would have heretically argued that contraception was permitted by the bible, or some other religious text.  (Think Wife of Bath type theological arguments).  Often, punishments from the inquisition would actually be carried out by the government authority.  The inquisitions were often interested in maintaining sexual mores - the Spanish inquisition definitely punished incest, homosexuality, etc.  We also have to remember that contraceptives were viewed much more clearly as abortifacients.  So these cases weren't just about preventing pregnancy (although that was definitely part of it) it was also about murder.  Granted, the views of abortion and infanticide could span quite a range; and there were often many approaches to handling these cases.  (There are some really interesting stories about witchcraft in early Canada involving being cursed with impotency, leading to a dissolving of the marriage, and presumably church sanctioned remarriage that produced numerous children from both new marriages.  The state got involved, but the church, not so much.  Granted, the view towards witchcraft had vastly changed by the French in the 16/17th century, leading to huge reduction in witchcraft trials.)

We have to remember that the inquisition saw itself as a corrective and salvific body - typically, the least amount of punishment for the greatest number of souls saved.  Now, there were obviously some very bad characters involved, and it looks like Kramer was one of these people, and obvious abuses happened.  The inquisition was also a means of ensuring social cohesion (this was not what it viewed itself to be, but what it ended up achieving).  There are numerous cases from the Roman inquisition of lip-service being paid to the renunciation of heretical positions with no real punishment other than the obligation to make a small donation or receive Communion more than once a year.  (Think of that! quite the punishment).  

[Gabriela]

​I'll preface this by saying that the Inquisitions are far outside my wheelhouse - and the Germanic one is probably the furthest.  I do not know what the statistics on punishment for contraceptives were - I would suspect that is would often be the provider of these tonics that would be the focus of inquisitorial interest.  Further, just because the church could punish did not always mean it did.  As to the link between witchcraft and contraception - this would probably come down to the case itself.  There were definitely those who would have said their tonics were the result of witchcraft.  Others would have heretically argued that contraception was permitted by the bible, or some other religious text.  (Think Wife of Bath type theological arguments).  Often, punishments from the inquisition would actually be carried out by the government authority.  The inquisitions were often interested in maintaining sexual mores - the Spanish inquisition definitely punished incest, homosexuality, etc.  We also have to remember that contraceptives were viewed much more clearly as abortifacients.  So these cases weren't just about preventing pregnancy (although that was definitely part of it) it was also about murder.  Granted, the views of abortion and infanticide could span quite a range; and there were often many approaches to handling these cases.  (There are some really interesting stories about witchcraft in early Canada involving being cursed with impotency, leading to a dissolving of the marriage, and presumably church sanctioned remarriage that produced numerous children from both new marriages.  The state got involved, but the church, not so much.  Granted, the view towards witchcraft had vastly changed by the French in the 16/17th century, leading to huge reduction in witchcraft trials.)

We have to remember that the inquisition saw itself as a corrective and salvific body - typically, the least amount of punishment for the greatest number of souls saved.  Now, there were obviously some very bad characters involved, and it looks like Kramer was one of these people, and obvious abuses happened.  The inquisition was also a means of ensuring social cohesion (this was not what it viewed itself to be, but what it ended up achieving).  There are numerous cases from the Roman inquisition of lip-service being paid to the renunciation of heretical positions with no real punishment other than the obligation to make a small donation or receive Communion more than once a year.  (Think of that! quite the punishment).  

​You're amazing. How do you know this stuff?

[truthfinder]

​You're amazing. How do you know this stuff?

​Thank you - I'm doing a doctoral degree on the Canadian bits, so it's both my research and what I teach (so this is copyright moi!).  I've also taken several medieval courses over the years.  Phatmass lets me spew some of the info out from time to time, and I'm glad you have found it helpful!