Are the statements against contraception truly infallible?

[thinkandmull]

Let’s assume you are right. They knew about the sperm, ovum and how they relate to periods.
If you read this: catholic.com/tracts/contraception-and-sterilization
Do you think they asked married couples to have sex only when they wanted to procreate?
2-3 times in their life?

How do you reconcile the HV, the unitive aspect, with this teaching?

The only logical conclusion is that they believed that every single act is needed for procreation hence they did not know about sperm, ovum and their relationship to periods.

Edit:

No space for the unitive sex.

The teaching of the Fathers that sex was only for procreation is about the purpose of the genital organs. They are for procreation. The unitive aspect of sex is more about the subjective meaning of sex, an ADDED purpose so to speak. I remember reading the Catechism of Trent on marriage and that it said that the purpose given to the procreative powers of Adam and Eve were solely for procreation. People who ignore their vocation to have children, THOSE are the ones definitely under condemnation by the Fathers. However, if a couple are infertile, it doesn’t mean they can’t still have sex because they didn’t sterilize themselves into permanent infertility

 

[thinkandmull]

Let’s assume you are right. They knew about the sperm, ovum and how they relate to periods.
If you read this: catholic.com/tracts/contraception-and-sterilization
Do you think they asked married couples to have sex only when they wanted to procreate?
2-3 times in their life?

How do you reconcile the HV, the unitive aspect, with this teaching?

The only logical conclusion is that they believed that every single act is needed for procreation hence they did not know about sperm, ovum and their relationship to periods.

Edit:

No space for the unitive sex.

Its about the minimum that the Fathers were condemning. They could be interpreted in that link as saying that infertile couples cannot marry or have sex when married and that oral sex in marriage even is immoral. Again, its about understanding what it CLEARLY condemns, not just what it could be interpreted as condemning

 

[thinkandmull]

I need to know if a couples’s intention to use contraception once they are married *invalidates *the married. An immediate family member of mine is getting married so this question is important to me. People raised orthodox Catholic find contraception clearly wrong from nature. I think this has to do with the fact that they are artificial pills. However, suppose something common like corn would make a person infertile on the night after he or she ate the corn. The teaching of the Church would then be that one cannot eat corn IN ORDER to be infertile for sex during that night. However, this doesn’t seem CLEARLY against natural law to me. The Church approves of organ transplants, but that seems more unnatural than the eating corn example. So we have to see contraception through the eyes of the hierarchies authority. However, if a couple doesn’t understand the issue of religious authority well enough, again, would their marriage be **invalid **because they intend to use contraception?

 

[Rau]

I need to know if a couples’s intention to use contraception once they are married *invalidates *the married. An immediate family member of mine is getting married so this question is important to me. People raised orthodox Catholic find contraception clearly wrong from nature. I think this has to do with the fact that they are artificial pills. However, suppose something common like corn would make a person infertile on the night after he or she ate the corn. The teaching of the Church would then be that one cannot eat corn IN ORDER to be infertile for sex during that night. However, this doesn’t seem CLEARLY against natural law to me. The Church approves of organ transplants, but that seems more unnatural than the eating corn example. So we have to see contraception through the eyes of the hierarchies authority. However, if a couple doesn’t understand the issue of religious authority well enough, again, would their marriage be **invalid **because they intend to use contraception?

Contraception is found wrong because it deliberately separates what God, by design, bound together. The artificiality of the pill is irrelevant.

If you don’t accept the theology, you can fall back to the authority. But don’t pretend there is no theological basis.

Does your relative propose contraception as s permanent feature of the marriage?

 

[CrossofChrist]

I need to know if a couples’s intention to use contraception once they are married *invalidates *the married. An immediate family member of mine is getting married so this question is important to me. People raised orthodox Catholic find contraception clearly wrong from nature. I think this has to do with the fact that they are artificial pills. However, suppose something common like corn would make a person infertile on the night after he or she ate the corn. The teaching of the Church would then be that one cannot eat corn IN ORDER to be infertile for sex during that night. However, this doesn’t seem CLEARLY against natural law to me. The Church approves of organ transplants, but that seems more unnatural than the eating corn example. So we have to see contraception through the eyes of the hierarchies authority. However, if a couple doesn’t understand the issue of religious authority well enough, again, would their marriage be **invalid **because they intend to use contraception?

See this link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=866238

And I find your analogy to be faulty. Organ transplants are meant for the repairing of nature for the person who is sick. Contraception is meant to disrupt nature.

In the corn example, I suppose it would depend on the situation. Does the person know the corn will make them infertile? Will they die if they don’t eat the corn? The principle of double effect applies there.

 

[thinkandmull]

Repairing life still has to be done morally. To my mind, it would be against nature to put someone else’s heart in me. God gave me MY heart, not someone else’s. To take someone else’s heart is to play God. When I realized this argument, I came to the opinion that natural law arguments are just probable arguments. With a few exceptions, we are really in the hands of the hierarchy. I wish they would be clear about teaching infallibly and do it often, but I doubt Rome reads this forum

My relative is marrying someone who had a previous marriage, which ended by them being abandoned by their partner. That first marriage used contraception as well. I am confused about how to feel about the marriage and whether I will go to it

 

[CrossofChrist]

Repairing life still has to be done morally. To my mind, it would be against nature to put someone else’s heart in me. God gave me MY heart, not someone else’s. To take someone else’s heart is to play God. When I realized this argument, I came to the opinion that natural law arguments are just probable arguments. With a few exceptions, we are really in the hands of the hierarchy. I wish they would be clear about teaching infallibly and do it often, but I doubt Rome reads this forum

My relative is marrying someone who had a previous marriage, which ended by them being abandoned by their partner. That first marriage used contraception as well. I am confused about how to feel about the marriage and whether I will go to it

I don’t know enough about the situation to be of much help . If it is really distressing you I would call a reliable priest and talk to him about it, get some advice, etc.

And of course prayer…a colloquy, a rosary, etc. could help with discernment, knowing God’s will.

 

[Rau]

…My relative is marrying someone who had a previous marriage, which ended by them being abandoned by their partner. That first marriage used contraception as well. I am confused about how to feel about the marriage and whether I will go to it

Is there a possibility that the prior marriage lacked validity and thus may be open to annulment?

 

[Rau]

Repairing life still has to be done morally. To my mind, it would be against nature to put someone else’s heart in me. God gave me MY heart, not someone else’s. To take someone else’s heart is to play God.

This is your personal ‘argument’ and is unsupported in any Catholic teaching. Healing is an accepted good. When you break a bone, do you not seek to repair the bone? There is no suggestion that an accident is the work of God and should not be interfered with. The same is true of transplants. If an organ fails and threatens your life, we seek to heal it, or indeed to replace it - with a donated organ (an act of charity on the part of the donor) or potentially an artificial organ (man’s ingenuity in seeking to preserve life - a good).

When I realized this argument, I came to the opinion that natural law arguments are just probable arguments.

There is no “natural law” argument opposing healing, including by organ donation.

Nor is there any other moral argument opposing organ donation. Up until the middle of the last century, our understanding of the morality of amputations and the like revolved around the “principle of totality” - it was OK to cut off something when it was necessary to save the whole. That was the “context” of our understanding of the subject. Pius XI and XII wrote against mutilation, and always in an appropriate (relevant) context (concerns about eugenic sterilisation, totalitarianism/Nazi experimentation). Yet in the very early days when organ donation first began to be discussed, moral theologians of the time cited those Papal statements as authoritative when they (the theologians) censure “mutilation” for transplantation purposes. With hindsight this was poor form, for they failed to see the papal statements in their relevant context. Over time, an understanding of what was happening grew, and organ donation was recognised as a great act of charity, not one of mutilation. [The physical evil done to the donor’s body was not a moral evil - the Act had in fact a good moral object.]

From the CCC:
*2296 Organ transplants are in conformity with the moral law if the physical and psychological dangers and risks to the donor are proportionate to the good sought for the recipient. Organ donation after death is a noble and meritorious act and is to be encouraged as a expression of generous solidarity. It is not morally acceptable if the donor or his proxy has not given explicit consent. Moreover, it is not morally admissible to bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being, even in order to delay the death of other persons. *

 

[thinkandmull]

This is your personal ‘argument’ and is unsupported in any Catholic teaching. Healing is an accepted good. When you break a bone, do you not seek to repair the bone? There is no suggestion that an accident is the work of God and should not be interfered with. The same is true of transplants. If an organ fails and threatens your life, we seek to heal it, or indeed to replace it - with a donated organ (an act of charity on the part of the donor) or potentially an artificial organ (man’s ingenuity in seeking to preserve life - a good).

There is no “natural law” argument opposing healing, including by organ donation.

Nor is there any other moral argument opposing organ donation. Up until the middle of the last century, our understanding of the morality of amputations and the like revolved around the “principle of totality” - it was OK to cut off something when it was necessary to save the whole. That was the “context” of our understanding of the subject. Pius XI and XII wrote against mutilation, and always in an appropriate (relevant) context (concerns about eugenic sterilisation, totalitarianism/Nazi experimentation). Yet in the very early days when organ donation first began to be discussed, moral theologians of the time cited those Papal statements as authoritative when they (the theologians) censure “mutilation” for transplantation purposes. With hindsight this was poor form, for they failed to see the papal statements in their relevant context. Over time, an understanding of what was happening grew, and organ donation was recognised as a great act of charity, not one of mutilation. [The physical evil done to the donor’s body was not a moral evil - the Act had in fact a good moral object.]

From the CCC:
*2296 Organ transplants are in conformity with the moral law if the physical and psychological dangers and risks to the donor are proportionate to the good sought for the recipient. Organ donation after death is a noble and meritorious act and is to be encouraged as a expression of generous solidarity. It is not morally acceptable if the donor or his proxy has not given explicit consent. Moreover, it is not morally admissible to bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being, even in order to delay the death of other persons. *

I am not disagreeing with the Catechism on this. I’m saying that its very difficult to separate the subjective from the objective in natural law arguments, which is why we have authority on this. One can easily see an argument that says “just as a husband shouldn’t put his sperm where it doesn’t belong, so you can’t put someone’s heart, which was meant for that person alone, into the body of another person”. What if a person got a heart transplant from his dad, a liver transplant from his mom, a kidney transplant from his son, and so on. Would this be moral, or should he be left to die from natural causes? Its a slippery ground, from the point of view of arguments. Without authority we would very much be in the dark

 

[thinkandmull]

Is there a possibility that the prior marriage lacked validity and thus may be open to annulment?

Well there is disagreement between more conservative Catholics and other Catholics on annulments. The former say that abandonment is not cause for an annulment.

 

[Rau]

Well there is disagreement between more conservative Catholics and other Catholics on annulments. The former say that abandonment is not cause for an annulment.

Why would you think that the “opinion” of Catholics at large ought be particularly relevant? A matter is not in doubt because opposing camps of Catholics hold different personal “opinions”.

Abandonment, a physical beating, whatever other event in the present you can think of, cannot in itself be “cause” for annulment. These things may well be cause for separation and for divorce, as measures necessary for safety and to provide for one’s future and that of children. Annulment goes to the question of whether a valid marriage occurred in the past - it addresses whether vows were validly exchanged. A valid and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved and abandonment has no bearing on that.

The wrongs that one partner may commit towards another may be pointers that cause the validity of vows to be questioned. But they cannot in themselves determine whether a valid marriage took place.

 

[Rau]

I am not disagreeing with the Catechism on this. I’m saying that its very difficult to separate the subjective from the objective in natural law arguments, which is why we have authority on this. One can easily see an argument that says “just as a husband shouldn’t put his sperm where it doesn’t belong, so you can’t put someone’s heart, which was meant for that person alone, into the body of another person”. What if a person got a heart transplant from his dad, a liver transplant from his mom, a kidney transplant from his son, and so on. Would this be moral, or should he be left to die from natural causes? Its a slippery ground, from the point of view of arguments. Without authority we would very much be in the dark

You are confusing moral acts with physical acts. What purpose and morality attaches to an organ transplant.? This is clear - it is a charitable act to save a life and it is morally good. What purpose and morality attaches to sodomy or onanism?

There are person walking around today who - in being healed from a serious accident - received organs from multiple other (dead) persons. Such acts could only be immoral when the performance of those transplants was conducted in circumstances where:

• the life of the donor(s) was ‘taken’ for the benefit of the recipient (murder); OR
• the potential for success for was very low, and other patients with better chance of success were thus denied.

I know of no other grounds on which transplants could be immoral.

The question of whether the injured could or should be allowed to die without treatment is a different one, quite separate from the issue you raise about the morality of the treatment.

 

[MrSnaith]

You are confusing moral acts with physical acts. What purpose and morality attaches to an organ transplant.? This is clear - it is a charitable act to save a life and it is morally good. What purpose and morality attaches to sodomy or onanism?

There are person walking around today who - in being healed from a serious accident - received organs from multiple other (dead) persons. Such acts could only be immoral when the performance of those transplants was conducted in circumstances where:

• the life of the donor(s) was ‘taken’ for the benefit of the recipient (murder); OR
• the potential for success for was very low, and other patients with better chance of success were thus denied.

I know of no other grounds on which transplants could be immoral.

The question of whether the injured could or should be allowed to die without treatment is a different one, quite separate from the issue you raise about the morality of the treatment.

A third ground on which transplants could be immoral is when the consent of the “donating” party has not been given. In such a case, the act is no longer an act of charity.

 

[thinkandmull]

You are confusing moral acts with physical acts. What purpose and morality attaches to an organ transplant.? This is clear - it is a charitable act to save a life and it is morally good. What purpose and morality attaches to sodomy or onanism?

There are person walking around today who - in being healed from a serious accident - received organs from multiple other (dead) persons. Such acts could only be immoral when the performance of those transplants was conducted in circumstances where:

• the life of the donor(s) was ‘taken’ for the benefit of the recipient (murder); OR
• the potential for success for was very low, and other patients with better chance of success were thus denied.

I know of no other grounds on which transplants could be immoral.

The question of whether the injured could or should be allowed to die without treatment is a different one, quite separate from the issue you raise about the morality of the treatment.

An act of charity must still be a moral. Whether putting someone else’s organs in another person is in accord with nature is up to the authority of the Church to decide. I don’t see how arguments can prove one or the other side definitely

 

[Rau]

An act of charity must still be a moral. Whether putting someone else’s organs in another person is in accord with nature is up to the authority of the Church to decide. I don’t see how arguments can prove one or the other side definitely

The Church has spoken on the principle. You seem to be debating and doubting for the sake of maintaining doubt and question.

 

[thinkandmull]

No, I was just pointing out that there are few natural law arguments that are actual arguments. They are really more like explanations to help us line our thinking with the Magisterium’s

 

[davidv]

No, I was just pointing out that there are few natural law arguments that are actual arguments. They are really more like explanations to help us line our thinking with the Magisterium’s

Sounds like a bad case of question begging.

 

[thinkandmull]

I’d like to know what is from a natural law understanding and what is upbringing. Organ transplants seem very unnatural to be, as onnanism seems very wrong. With our fallen human nature I think there is little which we can have definite arguments* per se *about with regard to natural law

On annulments, a lot of Latin Mass Catholics think the annulment situation in the Western world is a scandal, and that very few marriages are really invalid. I am not sure if the Church has made any specific teachings on this, or whether She even can. My relative was told by a priest that because the previous marriage ended soon in abandonment, the intention to be faithful was probably missing from the first marriage so it could be annulled. Such reasoning horrifies more traditionalist Catholics. I am kind of on the fence on this one

 

[Rau]

I’d like to know what is from a natural law understanding and what is upbringing. Organ transplants seem very unnatural to be, as onnanism seems very wrong. With our fallen human nature I think there is little which we can have definite arguments* per se *about with regard to natural law

On annulments, a lot of Latin Mass Catholics think the annulment situation in the Western world is a scandal, and that very few marriages are really invalid. I am not sure if the Church has made any specific teachings on this, or whether She even can. My relative was told by a priest that because the previous marriage ended soon in abandonment, the intention to be faithful was probably missing from the first marriage so it could be annulled. Such reasoning horrifies more traditionalist Catholics. I am kind of on the fence on this one

“Natural Law” is not about what is natural in the way you perhaps understand the word “natural”. Natural Law does not oppose dancing or mobile phones or cars or walking on hands or such things that one might ordinarily think of as unnatural (in the ordinary sense of the word). I suggest you do a little research on the subject.

The nature of annulment, based on historical enquiry and evidence and then the judgement of a tribunal makes it a very human and, dare I say, imperfect process. There must be cases where the evidence of a genuine failure of commitment simply can’t be produced, and there may likewise be cases where seemingly persuasive evidence leads to a wrong conclusion. However, there clearly are invalid marriages, and this is the best process we have to identify them. I would not waste my time worrying about what various “Catholics” at large think on the matter.