Humanae Vitae Debate Part 2

[BruceK]

This is a continuation of the ongoing debate I am with the dissident Catholic who rejects Humanae Vitae and Natural Family Planning (NFP). My antagonist says this about HV and NFP;
“The problem is that HV11 insists that ‘Each and every marital act must remain open to the transmission of life’. But, NFP (the non-artificial method) closes the marital act to the transmission of life, and so is prohibited by HV11. If NFP did not close the conjugal act to the transmission of life, it could not control births.
HV’s prohibition of ABC has been rejected by the sensus fidelium and will join other doctrines taught for centuries that were reversed, e.g., slavery, usury, freedom of religion, etc…
HV16 says: ‘It is true that in both cases [ABC and NFP] the husband and wife agree in positively willing to avoid children for acceptable reasons, seeking to be certain that offspring will not result…’
NFP requires taking deliberate steps in anticipation of (before) a marital act to exclude procreation from any marital acts. HV14 contradicts its sanction of NFP. In Casti Connubii, Pius XI stated that there was no objection to those who engaged in the marital act at times when conception was thought impossible. He did not, however, address use of the marital act solely at times when conception was thought impossible in a systematic attempt to avoid conception…
HV says that it’s ‘inseparable connection’ is the fundamental principle on which its “open” edict is based. Quoting all the rest of HV can not alter the fact that God in His act of creation separated the two functions of conjugal intercourse. (CCC1147: God speaks to man throiugh the visable creation.) HV’s “inseparable connection”, the basis of its “open” edict, is false. And not only is it false, but since we know from God’s act of creation that he willed it otherwise, HV’s assertion that the ‘inseparable connection’ is a rejection of God’s will.’ Quoting all of HV cannot alter the fact that HV’s “open” edict in HV11 condemns NFP and contradicts HV’s sanction of NFP. If NFP were not closed ot the transmission of life, it could not prevent the transmission of life. One can also quote HV13 and HV14, both of which contradict HV’s sanction of NFP.”

Any apologist here have any comments or rebuttal to this dissident catholic’s thesis?

 

[Vincent]

My antagonist says this about HV and NFP;
"The problem is that HV11 insists that ‘Each and every marital act must remain open to the transmission of life’. But, NFP (the non-artificial method) closes the marital act to the transmission of life, and so is prohibited by HV11.

Couples, if they wish, can achieve pregnancy using NFP. Thus, NFP *is *open to the transmission of life.

The non-procreative effect of NFP is not the result of altering the marital act itself, but rather, the result of timing. Not engaging in the marital act during a certain period is what yields this effect.** The marital act is not closed off to the transmission of life when there is no marital act to speak of.
**

HV’s prohibition of ABC has been rejected by the sensus fidelium and will join other doctrines taught for centuries that were reversed, e.g., slavery, usury, freedom of religion, etc…

His use of sensus fidelium excludes those of us who do accept the teaching of Humanae Vitae wholeheartedly.

NFP requires taking deliberate steps in anticipation of (before) a marital act to exclude procreation from any marital acts. HV14 contradicts its sanction of NFP.

NFP is all about not having sex. Is not engaging in the marital act “a deliberate step in anticipation of the marital act to exclude procreation from any marital act”?

In Casti Connubii, Pius XI stated that there was no objection to those who engaged in the marital act at times when conception was thought impossible. He did not, however, address use of the marital act solely at times when conception was thought impossible in a systematic attempt to avoid conception…

This doesn’t interact with the given quotes from HV. The marital act in itself remains integrated even if it is engaged in during infertile periods. The act remains unaltered: it remains what it is. Selfishly avoiding the act during times of fertility does not alter the act itself.

HV says that it’s ‘inseparable connection’ is the fundamental principle on which its “open” edict is based. Quoting all the rest of HV can not alter the fact that God in His act of creation separated the two functions of conjugal intercourse. (CCC1147: God speaks to man throiugh the visable creation.) HV’s “inseparable connection”, the basis of its “open” edict, is false. And not only is it false, but since we know from God’s act of creation that he willed it otherwise, HV’s assertion that the ‘inseparable connection’ is a rejection of God’s will.’ Quoting all of HV cannot alter the fact that HV’s “open” edict in HV11 condemns NFP and contradicts HV’s sanction of NFP. If NFP were not closed ot the transmission of life, it could not prevent the transmission of life. One can also quote HV13 and HV14, both of which contradict HV’s sanction of NFP."

The line of argumentation here is very unclear.

 

[BruceK]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceK
My antagonist says this about HV and NFP;
"The problem is that HV11 insists that ‘Each and every marital act must remain open to the transmission of life’. But, NFP (the non-artificial method) closes the marital act to the transmission of life, and so is prohibited by HV11.

Couples, if they wish, can achieve pregnancy using NFP. Thus, NFP is open to the transmission of life.

The non-procreative effect of NFP is not the result of altering the marital act itself, but rather, the result of timing. Not engaging in the marital act during a certain period is what yields this effect. The marital act is not closed off to the transmission of life when there is no marital act to speak of.

Quote:
HV’s prohibition of ABC has been rejected by the sensus fidelium and will join other doctrines taught for centuries that were reversed, e.g., slavery, usury, freedom of religion, etc…

His use of sensus fidelium excludes those of us who do accept the teaching of Humanae Vitae wholeheartedly.

Quote:
NFP requires taking deliberate steps in anticipation of (before) a marital act to exclude procreation from any marital acts. HV14 contradicts its sanction of NFP.

NFP is all about not having sex. Is not engaging in the marital act “a deliberate step in anticipation of the marital act to exclude procreation from any marital act”?

Quote:
In Casti Connubii, Pius XI stated that there was no objection to those who engaged in the marital act at times when conception was thought impossible. He did not, however, address use of the marital act solely at times when conception was thought impossible in a systematic attempt to avoid conception… …

This doesn’t interact with the given quotes from HV. The marital act in itself remains integrated even if it is engaged in during infertile periods. The act remains unaltered: it remains what it is. Selfishly avoiding the act during times of fertility does not alter the act itself.

Quote:
HV says that it’s ‘inseparable connection’ is the fundamental principle on which its “open” edict is based. Quoting all the rest of HV can not alter the fact that God in His act of creation separated the two functions of conjugal intercourse. (CCC1147: God speaks to man throiugh the visable creation.) HV’s “inseparable connection”, the basis of its “open” edict, is false. And not only is it false, but since we know from God’s act of creation that he willed it otherwise, HV’s assertion that the ‘inseparable connection’ is a rejection of God’s will.’ Quoting all of HV cannot alter the fact that HV’s “open” edict in HV11 condemns NFP and contradicts HV’s sanction of NFP. If NFP were not closed ot the transmission of life, it could not prevent the transmission of life. One can also quote HV13 and HV14, both of which contradict HV’s sanction of NFP."

The line of argumentation here is very unclear. **Indeed it is, when I first read it my reaction was “Huh? What?!!” So you’re not the only one who see it that way. I like to thank you for finally taking a crack at this. Over 50 peolpe have seen this post but you’r the only one who finally took a shot at it. **

 

[Janet_S]

You friend seems to be basing his whole argument on his belief that NFP and ABC are the same; HV is wrong in allowing NFP; therefore, he can reject HV outright.

Yet would your friend accept HV if NFP were also rejected and if total abstinence was the only acceptable way to space children? I doubt he would.

HV 11 says this:

Observing the Natural Law

1. The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.’’ (11) It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. (12)

Your friend is wrong. NFP does not “close the conjugal act to transmission of life.” The only way for a couple to “close a conjugal act to transmission of life” would be for them to willfully do something to alter their fertility.

The couple practicing NFP is not willfully doing anything to alter their fertility whereas the couple practicing ABC is.

The NFP couple is just observing the natural cycle and deciding either to have sex or not to have sex according to their observations. Certainly the Church never taught that a couple must have sex during each fertile time.

 

[Janet_S]

Who determines the decision of the sensus fidelium? Like Vincent said, many Catholics accept HV. Why does your friend think his voice (and those like-minded) will decide what the Church teaches?

Your friend is banking on a long shot if he thinks the Church will reverse HV. There is no sign that the Church will waver on this teaching. Paul VI wrote HV about 40 years ago; JP II spent much of his pontificate explaining *HV *further in his Theology of the Body discourses and in his encyclicals *Evangelium Vitae *and Veritatis Splendor. Benedict XVI doesn’t seem to be moving away from HV either.

If and when the Church changes her teaching on HV, we will have something to talk about. Until that time, we have nothing to talk about but the consistent teaching that ABC is intrinsically evil.

If your friend loves to appeal to V2 or the spirit of V2, tell him to pay attention to the Pope as V2 tells us in *Lumen Gentium *22:

The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power.

As far as the usury comparison, this is a tired old argument that has been brought up by every moral dissenter since the 1960’s. This argument draws on the article “Authority, Usury, and Contraception” (Cross Currents, Winter 1966) written by John Noonan.

The fact of the matter is this–the Church still considers usury a sin. She has not changed her teaching; it is the nature of money and the economy that have changed. Usury is sinful because it is a matter of injustice. Usury is not strictly defined as “charging interest on a loan.” Since at the present time we can make money on money (through investment), it is perfectly justified (and not sinful) to charge interest on a loan.

Here’s an article on usury:
“The Red Herring of Usury” by David J. Palm

catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=646

 

[Janet_S]

His argument is unclear because he is trying to use HV to support his rejection of it. If he truly rejects HV, why is he using anything from it to support his argument?

In general, he’s being very Protestant–picking and choosing what he wants to believe and denying the authority of the Church.

There are lots of holes in his argument. And like you said, it’s not entirely clear what his argument is. I think he wants to make you think he’s keenly aware of what HV claims, but I’m not sure he is.

Keep studying and reading HV.

 

[BruceK]

You friend seems to be basing his whole argument on his belief that NFP and ABC are the same; HV is wrong in allowing NFP; therefore, he can reject HV outright.

Yet would your friend accept HV if NFP were also rejected and if total abstinence was the only acceptable way to space children? I doubt he would.

HV 11 says this:

Your friend is wrong. NFP does not “close the conjugal act to transmission of life.” The only way for a couple to “close a conjugal act to transmission of life” would be for them to willfully do something to alter their fertility.

The couple practicing NFP is not willfully doing anything to alter their fertility whereas the couple practicing ABC is.

The NFP couple is just observing the natural cycle and deciding either to have sex or not to have sex according to their observations. Certainly the Church never taught that a couple must have sex during each fertile time.

**His thesis is not all that original, got it from some disenting catholics who rejected HV:
<From Turning Point:

(pg 140) …on August 1 [1968], two members of the Birth Control Commission, Dr. Andre Hellegers and Thomas Burch, along with John Noonan, who had been the Commission’s expert on the history of contraception, appeared at a news conference in Washington. Noonan, speaking for all three, said the encyclical suffers from “internal inconsistency” since the central teaching that every marriage act must remain “open to the transmission of life” contradicts the encyclical’s parallel teaching that the "rhythm system of contraception may be used for appropriate reasons".

(pg 157) [This contradiction is] a point that Commission member Andre Hellegers made in 1968. If natural family planning were to become 100% effective (as Church officials have long hoped) [and HV24 calls for], a Catholic couple could practice conjugal relations in good faith and with the blessing of the Church even though they do not intend to conceive and know there is not the slightest possibility of doing so. They could do this because the church would regard their conugal acts to be theoretically “open to the transmission of life” and “possessing a baby-making orientation”. Hellegers and most of his collegues viewed this rationale as absurd at the time, and despite the volumes on the library shelves, the debate hasn’t moved any distance since.

“On Responsible Parenthood”: The Final Report [Of the Birth Control Commission] Taken from The Birth Control Debate by Robert G. Hoyt,

(pg 91) The acceptance of a lawful application of the calculated sterile period of the woman – that the application is legitimate presupposes right motives – makes a separation between the sexual act which is explicitly intended and its reproductive effect which is intentionally excluded.

So the contradictions in HV between its edicts and its sanction of NFP were pointed out in the Final Report of the Commission that went to Pope Paul VI and articulated by Commission members and the Commission’s expert on the history of contraception. These contradictions are just glaring today to an objective reader of HV as they were to Commission mebers 40 years ago.>
** Any commnets about Noonan, Hellegers,Burch, and Hoyt in particular?

 

[BruceK]

His argument is unclear because he is trying to use HV to support his rejection of it. If he truly rejects HV, why is he using anything from it to support his argument?

In general, he’s being very Protestant–picking and choosing what he wants to believe and denying the authority of the Church.

There are lots of holes in his argument. And like you said, it’s not entirely clear what his argument is. I think he wants to make you think he’s keenly aware of what HV claims, but I’m not sure he is.

Keep studying and reading HV.

I think what he is trying to say is that since he believes HV and NFP to be inheritably self-contradictory ergo both must be rejected. He also believes the Church did a major reverasal in tradition and doctrine when it gave approval to the rhythum method in 1951, that is, NFP is inconsistant with traditional Catholic teaching

 

[Janet_S]

I think what he is trying to say is that since he believes HV and NFP to be inheritably self-contradictory ergo both must be rejected. He also believes the Church did a major reverasal in tradition and doctrine when it gave approval to the rhythum method in 1951, that is, NFP is inconsistant with traditional Catholic teaching

No one says he must use NFP or the rhythm method.

But it’s still a stretch to go from the conclusion that NFP and the rhythm method are wrong to the conclusion that ABC is acceptable.

You should probably get this book by Janet Smith:
amazon.com/Humanae-Vitae-Generation-Janet-Smith/dp/0813207401
Humanae Vitae: A Generation Later (Paperback)

Also, this article has some information that might help you:
thefreelibrary.com/_/print/PrintArticle.aspx?id=30071467
“Humanae vitae - 30 years: pre-history of Humanae vitae.”

And also get the book your friend is reading:
amazon.com/Turning-Point-Control-Commission-Humanae/dp/0824514580
Turning Point: The Inside Story of the Papal Birth Control Commission, & How Humanae Vitae Changed the (Hardcover)
by Robert McClory

That way you can read up on both sides of the issue. The only way you can discuss this with him is by understanding his point of view. If he’s getting all his information from McClory’s book, you should probably read it too.

 

[BruceK]

No one says he must use NFP or the rhythm method.

But it’s still a stretch to go from the conclusion that NFP and the rhythm method are wrong to the conclusion that ABC is acceptable.

You should probably get this book by Janet Smith:
amazon.com/Humanae-Vitae-…/dp/0813207401
Humanae Vitae: A Generation Later (Paperback)

Also, this article has some information that might help you:
thefreelibrary.com/_/prin…px?id=30071467
“Humanae vitae - 30 years: pre-history of Humanae vitae.”

And also get the book your friend is reading:
amazon.com/Turning-Point-…/dp/0824514580
Turning Point: The Inside Story of the Papal Birth Control Commission, & How Humanae Vitae Changed the (Hardcover)
by Robert McClory

That way you can read up on both sides of the issue. The only way you can discuss this with him is by understanding his point of view. If he’s getting all his information from McClory’s book, you should probably read it too.
]I haven’t had the chance to read Turning Poin but I am familiar with it. In the meantime this is what my friend had to say about JPII’s Love and Responsibiliy;
“There are two facets to JP II’s Love and Responsibility the anthropological perspective and facts that he presents and the restatement of the Church’s position on ABC. The two are not only unrelated, but the anthropological perspective refutes the Church’s position. Taken alone, it strongly supports the Natural Law argument that ABC is consistent with and supports God’s design constitutive of marriage .” ** I know its so ‘off-the-wall’ so what’s the best and most devastating rebuttal I can give to this outlandish argument? One more thing, are you by any chance Janet Smith?****

 

[Janet_S]

]I haven’t had the chance to read Turning Poin but I am familiar with it. In the meantime this is what my friend had to say about JPII’s Love and Responsibiliy**;
“There are two facets to JP II’s Love and Responsibility the anthropological perspective and facts that he presents and the restatement of the Church’s position on ABC. The two are not only unrelated, but the anthropological perspective refutes the Church’s position. Taken alone, it strongly supports the Natural Law argument that ABC is consistent with and supports God’s design constitutive of marriage .” ** I know its so ‘off-the-wall’ so what’s the best and most devastating rebuttal I can give to this outlandish argument? One more thing, are you by any chance Janet Smith?**
I have the book Love and Responsibility, but I haven’t read it yet.

Since I am not familiar with JPII’s arguments in Love and Responsibility, I can’t help you out with a rebuttal to your friend’s argument. I will look over the book to see what he’s talking about and get back with you.

I’m not Janet Smith, but I always recommend her to people who don’t understand the case against ABC. She really helped me to understand and finally to accept the Church’s teaching.

For anyone who is unfamiliar with Janet Smith, you can read her article “Contraception: Why Not?” here:
catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html

and, if you want a free MP3 of this talk, you can go to this site and scroll down to the bottom of the page:
catholicaudio.blogspot.com/search/label/Contraception

Janet Smith’s explanation of the Church’s teaching on HV and ABC is probably the best available.

 

[BruceK]

As i said a while back, I’ve having this ongoing debate with this other person over the issuse HV and NFP, anyway, this is what my friend had to say about JPII’s Love and Responsibiliy;
“There are two facets to JP II’s Love and Responsibility the anthropological perspective and facts that he presents and the restatement of the Church’s position on ABC. The two are not only unrelated, but the anthropological perspective refutes the Church’s position. Taken alone, it strongly supports the Natural Law argument that ABC is consistent with and supports God’s design constitutive of marriage .” I know its so ‘off-the-wall’ so what’s the best and most devastating rebuttal I can give to this outlandish argument?

 

[BruceK]

As I said a while back, I’ve having this ongoing debate with this other person over the issuse HV and NFP, anyway, this is what my friend had to say about JPII’s Love and Responsibiliy;
“*There are two facets to JP II’s Love and Responsibility the anthropological perspective and facts that he presents and the restatement of the Church’s position on ABC. The two are not only unrelated, but the anthropological perspective refutes the Church’s position. Taken alone, it strongly supports the Natural Law argument that ABC is consistent with and supports God’s design constitutive of marriage *.”
I know this is very outlandish and off-the-wall so what’s the the best and most devasting rebuttal to his argument? QUOTE]

 

[BruceK]

As I said a while back, I’ve having this ongoing debate with this other person over the issuse HV and NFP, anyway, this is what my friend had to say about JPII’s *Love and Responsibiliy;
"*There are two facets to JP II’s Love and Responsibility the anthropological perspective and facts that he presents and the restatement of the Church’s position on ABC. The two are not only unrelated, but the anthropological perspective refutes the Church’s position. Taken alone, it strongly supports the Natural Law argument that ABC is consistent with and supports God’s design constitutive of marriage ."
I know this is very outlandish and off-the-wall so what’s the the best and most devasting rebuttal to his argument? QUOTE]

 

[BruceK]

As I said a while back, I’ve having this ongoing debate with this other person over the issuse HV and NFP, well here’s an example of this exchange I’ve been having with him(my words are in bold):
Me: **Why do you believe there is a need for artificial birth control? **

Him: I don’t believe that I stated that there was a need for ABC, but the Church teaches that there is a need for birth control. I merely argue that the Church’s edicts against ABC as stated in HV demonstrably are false. But, there is a strong, rational argument from natural law in favor of ABC, whereas there is none in support of the Church’s position.

Me: >>** If not every conjugal act is “fertile” (and we agree with that) and we have an understanding of the woman’s body, why would ABC ever be needed? That is the question you need to seriously address if you are to take thisargumetn to its most logical conclusion.** <<

Him: That question is best answered by the 95% of Catholic married couples who reject HV’s edicts and use ABC. But, the answer is quite simple: conjugal intercourse plays a fundamental role in conjugal unity and lifelong marriages and ABC facilitates that role. That’s the reason that God in his act of creation separated the two purposes of conjugal intercourse.

As you can see his last paragraph is quite revealing. Any feedback on this would be greatly appreciated.

 

[BruceK]

I’m back again, as you may recall I’ve been having an on-and-off debate with this protagonist over the issue of Humanae Vitae, NFP and ABC. Well with the 40th anniversay of HV did a review of a article for the latest issue of First Things the article is titled "
The Vindication of Humanae Vitae" by Mary Eberstadt.
For reference purpose here’s a link to the article in question:
firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6262

My progagonist’s critique is as follows:
**There are (at least) three fundamental flaws in this article (and similar arguments): 1. It confuses the sexual revolution with the issue of contraception, 2. It equates correlation with causation, and 3. it is a consequentialist argument .

1. There is a distinct difference between the sexual revolution and the issue of the morality of ABC. The sexual revolution was a moral revolution, not a technological revolution. It was a rejection of conventional moral standards and an acceptance of the idea that sex was a pleasure to be enjoyed to the fullest independent of marriage and family. The sexual revolution would have proceeded if the Pill had never been invented. Playboy Magazine and other harbingers of the sexual revolution were on the newsstands years before the advent of the Pill.

There was no contraceptive revolution, contraceptives were already available. The Pill, which happened to coincide with the sexual revolution, was an innovation in birth control technology. Did it support the sexual revolution? Absolutely! Just as a 100% effective NFP would have, and existing contraceptives did. The Pill was just significantly more convenient and reliable from a female perspective. But it was the sexual revolution that lead to the widespread use of contraceptives outside of marriage and even to their improper use within marriage

1. Any university level statistics textbook will state that correlation does not imply causation. Yet defenders of HV, having no basis for HVs edicts in right reason, truth or reality, try to assert a causality between ABC and abortion, divorce, illigitimate children, male alcoholism, etc., wherever a correlation can be found. This is a false argument
   The 50s and 60s were a time that saw the confluence of a number of sociological trends: millions of soldiers back from WWII, the rise of the sexual revolution, improving economic conditions, women entering universities and the workplace in greater numbers, a better educated laity unwilling to just pay, pray and obey, the development of the Pill, the development of NFP, etc. The causality behind the effects predicted by Paul VI lies in the sexual revolution, not in contraception per se. The availability of contraception or the Pill did not cause the sexual revolution, it was already ongoing. There was a sexual revolution following WWI the roaring 20s - but no innovation in contraceptive technology preceded or caused it. The rhythm method introduced in 1930 was an innovation in contraception methodology. Yet, no sexual revolution followed its introduction and Pius XII sanctioned its use 21 years later reversing Casti Connubii. I have seen no evidence that the 1930 Lambeth Conferences sanction of contraception led to all of the dire consequences that Paul VI predicted. That took the post-WWII sexual revolution. This articles assumption that correlation means causation is a false basis for understanding the effects of contraception on behavior.
2. This argument is a consequentialist argument. That raises two problems. First, John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor (pg 41) and HV24 reject this type of argument. Second, to be valid, a consequentialist argument would have to correctly identify the causes of the consequences. This article falsely identifies contraception, instead of correctly identifying the sexual revolution as the cause of the consequences that Paul VI warned about.
   HV was about the morality of married Catholics using ABC. But this has gotten lost in the retrospectives. John Paul II says that the morality of an act must be judged by the nature of the act itself and not by its consequences. Yet HVs supporters are trying to justify its edicts w.r.t. married Catholics using ABC, by citing what it falsely claims are its consequences.

Suppose, that Paul VI had followed the advice of the Commission (Majority) Report, sanctioned the use of ABC by married Catholics for the same right reasons that Pius XII sanctioned rhythm. Then the Church might not be so divided and the last 40 years and John Paul IIs papacy could have focused on fighting the real cause of the current conditions the sexual revolution - instead of pretending that eliminating contraceptives would solve the worlds problems. The cause of the problems lies in the hearts of people, not in whether Catholic couples use NFP or ABC. The Church squandered its moral authority when it issued HV, and left itself impotent in the fight against the sexual revolution. That fight will be won or lost in peoples hearts not in the drugstores.

Suppose that the Pill didnt exist, but Dr. Hilgers had perfected NFP in the 1960s so that it was 100% effective as Pius XII and Paul VI recommended. Then the sexual revolution had adopted NFP, and women and college girls simply scheduled their adultery and fornications according to their fertility schedules. Would defenders of HV now be arguing that based on those consequences, Pius XII and Paul VI were wrong? That NFP caused these consequences? No. They would be arguing that the problem was in peoples hearts , not in the method that they used to sin**
Any feedback, counterarguments or rebuttals be appreciated.

 

[BruceK]

Here’s the latest from my exchange with the progagonist on this issue. As you will see his comments are very revealing-His words are in bold:

God’s will is known by the fact that He created humans so that it would not be true God’s will w.r.t. the “inseparable conection” is best.And God’s will confirms the discernment of the 95% of married Catholics who use birth control, who have direct knowledge and experience of conjugal life, and who, following their consciences based on that knowledge and experience, also reject HV24.and HV in general.:

But if your right in what you say w.r.t God’s will then there are some inexcapale implications you must confront: In the early part of the 20th century 95% of Catholics would have been opposed to the practice of ABC.

**Accepting 95% for the sake of argument, it would be correct to say that 95% accepted the Churchs position on the morality of birth control **>>

Also, up to the early 20th century all christian churches, sects and denominations were opposed to ABC. <<

This may be true. It is also true that until the second half of the 20th century, the Catholic Church had never formally condemned slavery.

Me: 1. Dose God determine his will by sticking out his thumb and see which way the wind the blows? So God therefore may have said one thing on a issue then after centuries or thousands of years he changes his mind and reverses himself on that issue, thus God is like a Democratic presidential candidate; he’s a flip-flopper?! <<

I believe Catholic theology teaches that God’s will is immutable. Sounds right to me.>>

1. Me: Or that all Christiandom was so incompetent that they couldn’t acurately figure out God’s will until the later half of the 20th century? But any of these of implications would be as what Cardinal John Henry Newman would say is “An intolerable paradox.” Well what say you? <<

**I say its nonsense, not an intolerable paradox. Christiandom is learning Gods will little by little as time goes by. Underscore that this issue is our understanding of Gods immutable will, not whether or not Gods changes His mind. **

**But, lets be specific. To understand Gods will w.r.t. conjugal morality through His creation of humans, humans first had to reach an adequate understanding of the human reproductive system in all of its aspects (physiological, psychological and spiritual) as God created it. Christiandom was not competent to do so until the first half of the 20th century. While their knowledge is not complete, in the first half of the 20th century, they arrived at a sufficiently comprehensive understanding, to also appreciate that God did not will that procreation be the only or even the primary purpose of conjugal intercourse, or that the two ends of conjugal intercourse be inseparably connected. Hence, Pope Pius XII in 1951 reversed the Churchs 2,000 year old teaching against any form of birth control and sanctioned rhythm to exclude (separate) procreation from conjugal intercourse. /B

I know there’s a least a few flaws in his arguments, specifically what are the flaws and what is rebuttal to his arguments?**

 

[BruceK]

And here we go again, here’s latest exchange with me and the aformentioned protagonist, his word are a follows:
“So if you want to consider the fact that 95% of married Catholics who use birth control reject HV’s edicts whereas a minority of celibate clergy support it a poll or a democratic vote, you must at least admit that the preponderence of those with experience and knowledge and who must live with the consequences reject HV, whereas the clergy who support it have no such direct experience or knowledge and in fact have a different ax to grind - authority.”
I respond: Truth and God’s will-for God is truth-is not determined by opinion polls. Whether the overwhelming majority of people support or oppose something is not a measurement of the truthfulness of what these people hold, and its certainly doesn’t mean they are necessarily right in that regard. That is why your argument is not valid and irrelevent. Thus it can only be a fallacy in argumentation.
“Between a minority of celibate clergy and 95% of married Catholics who use birth control, there is a disagreement as to just what is God’s will w.r.t. conjugal morality. We know from the human fertility cycle, as you have agreed, that God did not will that the two ends of conjugal intercourse be inseparably connected, so HV12’s “inseparable connection”, the basis for its “open” edict, is false. Married couples know this from direct knowledge and experience of the conjugal life, ie., they know the natural law through the experience, conaturality and inclinations of married life”<<
B**]]I counter, The Appeal to Common Practice is a fallacy with the following structure:

X is a common action.

Therefore X is correct/moral/justified/reasonable, etc.

The basic idea behind the fallacy is that the fact that most people do X is used as “evidence” to support the action or practice. It is a fallacy because the mere fact that most people do something does not make it correct, moral, justified, or reasonable**.
He replies: “Its still irrelevant because the point is not that a preponderance of a homogeneous population hold position X about subject S, while a small minority hold position Y. Rather it is that the preponderance of a population with direct knowledge and experience of subject S hold position X whereas, a small minority with no direct knowledge and experience of subject S hold position Y. The point is the direct knowledge and experience of conjugal life that the 95% bring to the subject of conjugal morality, and the ignorance of the small minority that holds an opposing viewpoint. Further, the position of the 95% is independently supported by Gods will as expressed through His creation of humans, whereas the position of the small minority conflicts with Gods will so discerned.”
Me: **An appeal to fair play, which might seem to be an appeal to common practice, need not be a fallacy. For example, a woman working in an office might say “the men who do the same job as me get paid more than I do, so it would be right for me to get paid the same as them.” This would not be a fallacy as long as there was no relevant difference between her and the men (in terms of ability, experience, hours worked, etc.). More formally:

1. It is common practice to treat people of type Y in manner X and to treat people of type Z in a different manner.
2. There is no relevant difference between people of type Y and type Z. <<**
   He replies: “As explained above, this is why your argument is false. There is a significant, definitive difference between married Catholics and celibate priests w.r.t. to understanding Gods will w.r.t. conjugal life. And I have explained the relevant difference above which not even someone as stupid and dishonest as yourself can deny. So I am justified in treating married Catholics and celibate clergy differently.”

I know there are a few flaws and holes in his argumentaton so I’m asking specificlly what are they and what would be the rebuttal to them

 

[Vincent]

BruceK's Protagonist:

As explained above, this is why your argument is false. There is a significant, definitive difference between married Catholics and celibate priests w.r.t. to understanding Gods will w.r.t. conjugal life. And I have explained the relevant difference above which not even someone as stupid and dishonest as yourself can deny. So I am justified in treating married Catholics and celibate clergy differently.

Perhaps I haven’t been following his argument carefully, but it seems that he has refused to consider those “5%” of married Catholics who embrace Humanae Vitae. A number of my friends are in this category, and they would say that their “direct experience and knowledge” confirms what the Church teaches on conjugal love. Shouldn’t we give them a hearing, too?

 

[BruceK]

Perhaps I haven’t been following his argument carefully, but it seems that he has refused to consider those “5%” of married Catholics who embrace Humanae Vitae. A number of my friends are in this category, and they would say that their “direct experience and knowledge” confirms what the Church teaches on conjugal love. Shouldn’t we give them a hearing, too?

**Ah, good point. I suspect the figure of 5% is too low, if we were to factor Catholics worldwide I think the figure would be closer to 20% **