Does Humanae Vitae spiritually kill most Catholic’s souls?

[buffalo]

Steven Merten:

Does the Pope ever look at a profit and loss graph when considering the use of the “Keys to the Kingdom” to hold bound or hold sins loost? Does he say to himself, “Wow, Humanae Vitae can potentially add up to the heavenly loss of 900,000 souls of Christ’s one billion Catholics. The loss of Protestant souls to Humanae Vitae is equally horrifying. But I, the Pope, am still going to enforce condom use as a mortal sin with the ‘Keys to the Kingdom’. I still plan no preaching blitz to change such a tragic Church course”

In business or government such potential high losses to a primary goal would certianly cause great alarm and intense study on how to reverse such losses. Stock holders, citizens and owners would demand changes. What do you think the Church’s Boss thinks of such potential high losses of spiritual life to Humanae Vitae?

It is disscussed in this thread that Christians are not getting a proper amount of teaching from Church leaders to know that condom use will take their eternal life. If I were in command of one billion Catholics and potentially 900,000 of them could be lost to eternal damnation over condom use, this would become my number one priority. Capital punishment, war or any of the other physical death issues, that appear to be the Pope John Paul II priorities, seem to be but a drop of water compared to the ocean sized catastrophy of potential spiritual death destruction that Humanae Vitae appears to be capable of? If Humanae Vitae is capable of damning so many souls, I would think that Church leaders must make a full reversal on where the Pope spends his mass media opportunities, where Bishops spend their time shoring up weak areas and where Priests devote homily time at Mass.

This is, of course, if Church leaders truly believe that condom use and tube tying is as spiritually deadly as they say it is.

What do you think?

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

The Pope has been teaching that we recently have been approaching sex from the perspective of selfishness and not its original intent. It should be selflessness - until this foundational teaching reaches its critical mass again, people will not understand contraception being a sin.

 

[rlg94086]

fix:

I see your point and there is merit to it. I guess my point is that given we live in a very sophisticated society with many educated people, one is hard pressed to claim they are invincibly ignorant.

Using your example, I would think the entire country knows the Catholic Church teaches contraception is a sin, they may not know why, but they know the Church forbids it. That is full knowledge. Now, if a cleric, or nun, tells soneone that the Church teaching is the exact opposite I would think that person has an obligation to seek out the correct answer. We can’'t always say it was bad catechesis as if we have no furher obligation to clarify the contradiction.

In the end, God will read our hearts. I just want to clarify we use our God given talents in many secular ways, yet do the minimum to learn the faith and then declare we are without sin when we have done very little to learn the truth. What is more important than learning about eternal salvation?

BTW, the CCC says Catholics are under a serious obligation to form their consciences correctly, I thnk #s 1740 and 1741. Bad catechesis may limit one’s culpability, but it can’t always completely obviate it given one’s access to so much info these days.

We are in complete agreement. It was in reading the Catechism myself that I discovered the errors I was taught. When you learn that a properly formed conscience can never be contrary to the Truth taught by the Church, it changes your perspective on things .

Again, since we don’t know whether someone is ignorant or obstinate, all we can do is instruct and encourage each other to seek the Truth - charitably, of course.

God Bless,

Robert.

 

[felra]

buffalo:

The clergy have remained silent for many years and privately counseled couples that it may be OK - does this reflect their own pastoral concerns and that if they keep us ignorant it lessens our sin? A conspiracy of sorts?

If anything, it reflects Catholics who do not stand up to the clergy/religious/Church authority and calling their dissident “pastoral solution” a pile of manure, and this is why… :ehh:

 

[miguel]

buffalo:

The clergy have remained silent for many years and privately counseled couples that it may be OK - does this reflect their own pastoral concerns and that if they keep us ignorant it lessens our sin? A conspiracy of sorts?

I actually heard a priest say that. I thought to myself how twisted. I should have said out loud “How twisted!” They’re not doing us any favors by keeping us in the dark. The tragic consequences of sin are all around us.

 

[miguel]

shannon e:

…Our leaders would be remiss if they do not inform us of what happens if we choose to not live by that truth, or if we choose not to repent of our sins.

And I think this is what Steven is saying and he’s right. I would argue that they have informed us, at least half-heartedly. I don’t think anyone with a pulse can deny the Catholic Church is officially opposed to contraception. Even Protestants are aware of it. And the secular society as well, since they often refer to the teaching with disdain. But at least they know what the teaching is. But our American leaders have allowed misunderstandings about the primacy of conscience to go unchallenged. And that’s not good enough. And the sense of urgency on this is simply not there on the part of our leaders. And here again Steven is right. But Steven also seems to imply that the Catholic Church shouldn’t call certain acts sinful if it means the loss of a large number of souls. But how can the Church hold back what they know to be true? You can bet that will be one of the questions asked of them at the Judgement. And of all of us.

 

[otm]

buffalo:

The clergy have remained silent for many years and privately counseled couples that it may be OK - does this reflect their own pastoral concerns and that if they keep us ignorant it lessens our sin? A conspiracy of sorts?

No, it probably has more to do with the shift in a deemphasis on Thomistic philosophy years ago, coupled with the then question of whether or not the Pill acted in a different way (i.e. was not frustrating the natural end of marriage, as it only modified the woman’s cycle), coupled with a statement of PaulVI (probably given with some frustration) that pretty much came down to a statement of “Because I said so”.

In other words, there was not a single reason that this can be reduced to.

Monday morning quarterbacking is always so much more accurate.

 

[FranL]

I dunno, maybe I read the whole thing wrong. But this is some of the worst …can’t think of a polite word so I’ll just end this sentence here.

The Pope doesn’t make sins. He can’t create a new sin by decree or any other mechanism made available to the Church by God. He can only perform his duty to inform Christians of sin and instruct them on how to avoid it.

Humanae Vitae is a warning sign. “BRIDGE OUT! If you proceed down this road you will drive into a bottomless abyss from which there is no hope of escape!”

It is the Truth. Those who choose to ignore the sign and drive on throw themselves over the precipice into hell quite voluntarily and against the intended purpose of the warning sign and the desires of God, His Pope and His Church. Which is to save their immortal souls.

Sincerely concerned over what appears to be a deliberate misrepresentation of the Truth,

• FranL

 

[miguel]

otm:

No, it probably has more to do with the shift in a deemphasis on Thomistic philosophy years ago, coupled with the then question of whether or not the Pill acted in a different way (i.e. was not frustrating the natural end of marriage, as it only modified the woman’s cycle), coupled with a statement of PaulVI (probably given with some frustration) that pretty much came down to a statement of “Because I said so”.

In other words, there was not a single reason that this can be reduced to.

Monday morning quarterbacking is always so much more accurate.

You should read Humanae Vitae. Paul VI gives a wealth of reasons for the teaching. Not just “because I said so.” Not that there is anything wrong with the Pope saying “because I said so.” Since Jesus told his predecessor 2000 years ago “whatever you hold bound on earth will be held bound in heaven…”

 

[Steven_Merten]

otm:

No, it probably has more to do with the shift in a deemphasis on Thomistic philosophy years ago, coupled with the then question of whether or not the Pill acted in a different way (i.e. was not frustrating the natural end of marriage, as it only modified the woman’s cycle), coupled with a statement of PaulVI (probably given with some frustration) that pretty much came down to a statement of “Because I said so”.

In other words, there was not a single reason that this can be reduced to.

Monday morning quarterbacking is always so much more accurate.

Hello otm,

I am a little unclear as to what you are saying. What is Thomistic philosophy and who and how has it been deemphasised?

I have heard that Pope Paul VI wanted to make Humanae Vitae an infallible proclamation. I have heard that some Cardinals convinced him not to state it infallibly. My understanding is that the Cardinals felt that it should be left open for a future Pope to be able to use the “Keys to Kingdom” to loost Humanae Vitae. I am told that Pope Paul VI did decide not to make Humanae Vitae an infallible statement. In site of the tremendous spiritually destructive loss of souls of binding condom use as mortal sin, it seems that there was hesitation, on the part of these Cardinals and Pope Paul VI, to go all the way to the point of no return.

Have you or anyone else heard this claim or know where one can read about it?

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

 

[fix]

Steven Merten:

Hello otm,

I am a little unclear as to what you are saying. What is Thomistic philosophy and who and how has it been deemphasised?

I have heard that Pope Paul VI wanted to make Humanae Vitae an infallible proclamation. I have heard that some Cardinals convinced him not to state it infallibly. My understanding is that the Cardinals felt that it should be left open for a future Pope to be able to use the “Keys to Kingdom” to loost Humanae Vitae. I am told that Pope Paul VI did decide not to make Humanae Vitae an infallible statement. In site of the tremendous spiritually destructive loss of souls of binding condom use as mortal sin, it seems that there was hesitation, on the part of these Cardinals and Pope Paul VI, to go all the way to the point of no return.

Have you or anyone else heard this claim or know where one can read about it?

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

HV is infallible by the ordinary magisterium.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

turboEDvo:

But say for example (and do pardon the lame example, for lack of a better one at the moment) that in 20 years that the Pope proclaimed that posting on internet forums was a mortal sin. Is that to say that all of us, who didn’t have the good fortune of discerning this earlier and didn’t see the harmful effects it had on our souls, are in for eternal damnation?

Eamon

I don’t think your example is lame at all. In fact, I think it turns out to be a very good one.

The answer to your question lies in whether or not a person *should *have been able to discern that an action was wrong. Wisdom is a grace, but by and large, discernment isn’t entirely a matter of luck, correct? Have you ever made a good-faith effort to discern whether your use of internet forums is right, wrong, or even gravely wrong? For instance, does it have the effect of encouraging or facilitating actions or attitudes that you know to be evil in either yourself or others: sloth, slander (or libel, as the case may be), deceit, rash judgement, self-importance, jealousy, anger, and so on? Might it have turned seekers from the faith? Do you make payments to your Internet provider for services you don’t need while neglecting the needs of the less fortunate?

If you look at it that way, it is hard to imagine how the use of the Internet might intrinsically be a grave sin, but entirely likely that it might be sinful. You are responsible to avoid sin where you see sin, but that does imply actually opening your eyes.

We don’t have a right to sit around waiting for the Church to spell out every sin in black and white. As soon as we comprehend that there are such things, we are bound to be diligent in pursuing the will of God and the love of God and rejecting that which obstructs it–anywhere and in any one. We aren’t responsible for avoiding what we had no way of knowing was wrong, but those instances are not so common as we might like to think.

 

[MamaGeek]

I did not vote, because your poll is flawed. There is not one single option which is in keeping with Church teaching. Mortal sin requires three things:

1. full knowledge
2. full consent
3. grave matter

Artificial birth control does constitute grave matter, and using it puts the soul at risk of Hell, whether you are Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, pagan, or Jew. But only God can judge the extent to which the other two requirements apply. An honest soul-searching, with the help of a good confessor, can help the sinner to discern whether they have committed a mortal sin, but it is incorrect to state that anyone will undoubtedly “die spiritually” for using birth control. Is it not better to be guided by the infallible teaching authority of the Catholic Church in order to avoid even the chance of mortal sin, by avoiding grave matter altogether?

On another note, the Humanae Vitae is not the only statement against birth control. Read the Catechism sometime.

 

[Trelow]

MamaGeek:

but it is incorrect to state that anyone will undoubtedly “die spiritually” for using birth control.

True, but it does cut one off from grace making it more likely they will fall into mortal sin.

 

[MamaGeek]

Trelow:

True, but it does cut one off from grace making it more likely they will fall into mortal sin.

Good point, which is why it is so important to educate oneself on church teaching, so as to avoid such risks.

 

[shannon_e]

miguel:

And I think this is what Steven is saying and he’s right. I would argue that they have informed us, at least half-heartedly. I don’t think anyone with a pulse can deny the Catholic Church is officially opposed to contraception. Even Protestants are aware of it. And the secular society as well, since they often refer to the teaching with disdain. But at least they know what the teaching is. But our American leaders have allowed misunderstandings about the primacy of conscience to go unchallenged. And that’s not good enough. And the sense of urgency on this is simply not there on the part of our leaders. And here again Steven is right. But Steven also seems to imply that the Catholic Church shouldn’t call certain acts sinful if it means the loss of a large number of souls. But how can the Church hold back what they know to be true? You can bet that will be one of the questions asked of them at the Judgement. And of all of us.

I think you’re right. Steven has touched on a big problem.
Maybe it was the sin of complacency that allowed for leaders and laity to merely state the sin; without teaching the why and worth of chastity right along with it?

I do think there is a sense of urgency that has been laid at all of our feet.

And yes, Steven’s other implication is absurd.

Peace

 

[BLB_Oregon]

miguel:

You should read Humanae Vitae. Paul VI gives a wealth of reasons for the teaching. Not just “because I said so.” Not that there is anything wrong with the Pope saying “because I said so.” Since Jesus told his predecessor 2000 years ago “whatever you hold bound on earth will be held bound in heaven…”

Yes, well, Jesus also had a word or two for those Pharisees who bound up heavy loads for others to bear, but lifted not a finger to help in the lifting. He was clear about what the vocation of a shepherd of the Church required. The ability to bind and loose was not a carte blanche… it presumed union with Jesus. I believe our Popes have known this and taken it seriously. They don’t use “because I said so.” That would be an abuse of their position.

 

[FranL]

This whole thread is based on a gross misrepresentation of the facts and the bulk of the responses indicate a great deal of confusion concerning the mechanisms at work here.

Not only has the Church consistently taught that artificial birth control was a grave sin for the last two thousand years but so did every protestant denomination since the reformation until the early part of the 20th century.

Humanae Vitae was a response to the pressure being put on the Church by it’s members as well as secular society as one protestant denomination after another folded on the issue in the time between 1930 and the date of it’s issue.

Humanae Vitae does not make birth control a sin. It merely reminds all mankind that it is a sin. And protestants know this if they have studied their faith.
Are warning signs like “Bridge Out!” binding on the reader even if he’s not Catholic? Only if he wants to live!

Catechesis on this matter only dissolved in the post Vatican II period because of weak clergy confronted by the pressures of the sexual revolution and because of internal dissidents who had hoped Vatican II would reverse the teaching. Prior to that it was the accepted and clearly known teaching of the Church.

Lastly, it is an eternal and infallible teaching of our Church. Not because of Humanae Vitae but because of the consistent teaching of the Magisterium on the matter from the beginning of the Church. Humanae Vitae was a call to the faithful to return to their salvation. Not a condemnation of Catholics or anyone else.

If any choose to remain ignorant on the matter of sin, well, they have been free to make that choice from the very beginning. But that ignorance will not be held a mitigating condition come judgment.
The Church has performed her duty faithfully to preserve and preach the Truth for two thousand years. Today more than ever it is available for anyone who wants to hear it. Anyone, at least in our culture, who professes ignorance of the Truth is speaking of an ignorance that they have chosen for themselves and it will not save them from their guilt.

Sincerely concerned,

• FranL

 

[fix]

FranL:

This whole thread is based on a gross misrepresentation of the facts and the bulk of the responses indicate a great deal of confusion concerning the mechanisms at work here.

Not only has the Church consistently taught that artificial birth control was a grave sin for the last two thousand years but so did every protestant denomination since the reformation until the early part of the 20th century.

Humanae Vitae was a response to the pressure being put on the Church by it’s members as well as secular society as one protestant denomination after another folded on the issue in the time between 1930 and the date of it’s issue.

Humanae Vitae does not make birth control a sin. It merely reminds all mankind that it is a sin. And protestants know this if they have studied their faith.
Are warning signs like “Bridge Out!” binding on the reader even if he’s not Catholic? Only if he wants to live!

Catechesis on this matter only dissolved in the post Vatican II period because of weak clergy confronted by the pressures of the sexual revolution and because of internal dissidents who had hoped Vatican II would reverse the teaching. Prior to that it was the accepted and clearly known teaching of the Church.

Lastly, it is an eternal and infallible teaching of our Church. Not because of Humanae Vitae but because of the consistent teaching of the Magisterium on the matter from the beginning of the Church. Humanae Vitae was a call to the faithful to return to their salvation. Not a condemnation of Catholics or anyone else.

If any choose to remain ignorant on the matter of sin, well, they have been free to make that choice from the very beginning. But that ignorance will not be held a mitigating condition come judgment.
The Church has performed her duty faithfully to preserve and preach the Truth for two thousand years. Today more than ever it is available for anyone who wants to hear it. Anyone, at least in our culture, who professes ignorance of the Truth is speaking of an ignorance that they have chosen for themselves and it will not save them from their guilt.

Sincerely concerned,

• FranL

EXCELLENT.

 

[miguel]

BLB_Oregon:

Yes, well, Jesus also had a word or two for those Pharisees who bound up heavy loads for others to bear, but lifted not a finger to help in the lifting. He was clear about what the vocation of a shepherd of the Church required. The ability to bind and loose was not a carte blanche… it presumed union with Jesus. I believe our Popes have known this and taken it seriously. They don’t use “because I said so.” That would be an abuse of their position.

I’ve said elsewhere on this thread that having followed Humanae Vitae in my own marriage, we did not think it such a heavy burden, especially given the effectiveness of NFP. We trusted God, and the teaching of his Church, and have no regrets. The doctrine of papal infallibility holds that God protects papal teaching on faith and morals from error. So yes, it’s not a carte blanche. It doesn’t extend to mathematics. And yes, they don’t often frame their teaching in such blunt language. After all, for the common good, they want our Lord’s teaching to be well and widely received. So the tone is important. But Jesus did put Peter in charge. He is the shepherd. We are the sheep. And that was my point.

 

[BibleReader]

The Poll here presumes that the Bible has nothing to say on contraception.

In fact, there is pretty good evidence that at 4 places the Bible expressly condemns use of contraceptives; and at 3 of those places the Bible is quite nasty, saying that (unrepentant) users will be damned to Hell.

Additionally, the rule agaiunst use of contraceptives is not established by Humanae Vitae. Humanae Vitae merely states what is already Natural Law – in the consciences of Protestants, too, condemning them no less strongly than violated consciences condemn Catholics.