Humanae Vitae Debate Part III

[Red_Beard]

The effectiveness of NFP and the effectiveness opf ACB have nothing to do with their acceptablity or unacceptablity.

Bulimia is just as effective, if not more so, at losing weight as as proper nutrition and exercise. But it is not a good or healthy way to achieve the end of enjoying food and maintaing your figure. ABC is to sex, what bulimia is to eating: seeking pleasure without consequence by abusing the human body and rejecting the real purpose of the act.

Coitus interruptus (very ineffective) is just a wrong as castration (100% effective) as a method of birth control.

If NFP were 100% effective it would still be acceptable. NFP does not “slam the door on life.” Ever. NFP sees when the door is open to life or closed to it. That is all. It does not distort or damage the human body to avoid life, it does not distort the purpose or meaning of sex to avoid life, and properly used, it does use a person as tool to achieve pleasure. The same cannot be said for ABC.

The human body is designed to be fertile at sometimes and infertile at others. That is how our bodies work in reality. It is not meant to be infertile all the time.

ABC does not respect reality and the the way things are supposed to work, in trying to achieve the goal of not conceiving. It attempts to break reality to reach the desired goal.

ABC is not condemned becaue it is artificial, or pleasureable, or seeks a different end than NFP. Both can seek to avoid conception. It is condemned because it seeks pleasure as an end in itself, instead of a consequence, and it does this by abusing the human body, the purpose of sex, and the relationship of husband and wife.

 

[BruceK]

Here’s the latest exchange I’ve had with him on this issue, his words are as followso you deny that the Church teaches that if a married couple intentionally uses NFP to exclude procreation for the life of their marriage, then their “doing nothing” was immoral? Yes or No.
** **

 

[truagape]

It is so interesting to see all of the nuances of argumentation that have been created and perhaps will be created around the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding contraception. Endless debates about the specifics of sex, contraception, and family planning, the bible has remained silent on. Yet, men with their expanded rules and regulations plant seeds for unnecessary debates, as Paul mentioned. I can’t help but be reminded of the Pharisees and the specific and expanded restrictions they placed in accordance with the 10 commandments. For example, Yahweh said not to take his name in vain. The Pharisees said not to even utter it.
Yahweh said to remember the sabbath. The Pharisees had restrictions on how far one could walk, and set endless definitions and examples of “work” to be avoided. Again to them it was all about the letter of law and the human Traditions such a perspective birthed. I don’t want to accuse anyone on here of having a bad heart or having the wrong motives. But in reading the posts on here, I fail to see how this thread isn’t falling victim to that same indictment.

 

[BruceK]

It is so interesting to see all of the nuances of argumentation that have been created and perhaps will be created around the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding contraception. Endless debates about the specifics of sex, contraception, and family planning, the bible has remained silent on. Yet, men with their expanded rules and regulations plant seeds for unnecessary debates, as Paul mentioned. I can’t help but be reminded of the Pharisees and the specific and expanded restrictions they placed in accordance with the 10 commandments. For example, Yahweh said not to take his name in vain. The Pharisees said not to even utter it.
Yahweh said to remember the sabbath. The Pharisees had restrictions on how far one could walk, and set endless definitions and examples of “work” to be avoided. Again to them it was all about the letter of law and the human Traditions such a perspective birthed. I don’t want to accuse anyone on here of having a bad heart or having the wrong motives. But in reading the posts on here, I fail to see how this thread isn’t falling victim to that same indictment.

**Is it Pharisaical to say that homosexuality is not normal? And is it Pharisaical to say that marriage is defined strictly between a man and a woman? **

 

[BruceK]

Maybe you can help me out with this; as many of you know by now I’ve been having this on-going debate with this pro-contraception progagonist and he threw a clever curveball just recently. His words are in bold:
Me: I think the thesis that Humanae Vitae is merely a “personal opinion” of the pope which can be licitly dissented with has lost all credibility among the Catholic faithful, clung to only by notoriously dissident theologians. <<

**Him: Your opinion is refuted by Janet smith’s data which show that 95 % of married American Catholics who practice birth ****control and a majority of priests reject HV’s edicts on ABC. **

<<Me: truth and morality is not determined by majority vote. <<

Him: No one posted that truth and morality are determined by majority vote. Once again you are tryig to change the issue to avoid embarassment. But, as I have pointed out before, the issue is your statement that HV can be dissented from has lost all credibility among the Catholic faithful, clung to only by notoriously dissident theologians. The fact that 95% of married Catholics in the U.S. abd a majority of priests reject HV’s edicts demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that your statement is false.

<<Me: I said before and I’ll say it again: As far as the numbers of Catholics using artificial contraception, the number has no bearing on the morality of the act. <<

**Him: That is not the same as your statement, above. Once again resorting to dishonesty, you are changing your statement. I agree that truth and morality is not determined by majority vote. I also agree that: As far as the numbers of Catholics using artificial contraception, the number has no bearing on the morality of the act. But it is false to assert that the numbers of Catholics using artificial contraception has no bearing on our understanding of the morality of the act. There is a big difference. My argument is not based on a majority vote, per se, but rather on the fact that the the 95% of married Catholics who reject HV’s edicts have direct experience and knowledge of conjugal life and majority of clergy who also reject HV’s edicts gain indirect knowledge of conjugal life by listening to married couples who have direct experience and knowledge. The celibate clique that inflicted HV on the Church rejected direct and indirect knowledge of conjugal life, and in fact based their decision what they thought would best defend the teaching “authority” of the Magisterium.

It’s fair to ask why the number of Catholics using artificial contraception has a significant bearing on our understanding of the morality of the act. And the reason is that for over 1900 years the Magisterium insisted that procreation was the primary purpose of the conjugal act. But, in the last century as married couples began to compare the Magisterium’s teaching with the reality of conjugal life as they experienced it, they realized that conjugal intercourse served two separate purposes - procreation and unification. They realized that the Magisterium’s 1900 year old teaching was based o a false understanding of conjugal relations. Their knowledge, based on direct experience, is confirmed by the fact that God created humans, unlike other animal species, so that conjugal intercourse serves two separate purposes. God, speaking the language of the body, married Catholics, and a majority of clergy are in agreement on conjugal morality; the celibate clique and their followers reject that position.**
Obviously there is something fishy about his argumentation, so waht exact are his flaws and fallacies, and how do I best address them?:

 

[bobzills]

Your opinion is refuted by Janet smith’s data which show that 95 % of married American Catholics who practice birth control and a majority of priests reject HV’s edicts on ABC.

This appears to be a grave situation if a majority of Roman Catholic priests are heretics? In the past heresy was taken seriously and people were burned at the stake for heresy?

 

[mpi]

Most Americans who practice NFP to avoid pregnancy are sinning by doing so. The Catholic church condemns the use of NFP to avoid pregnancy, except when their are grave circumstances. Perhaps legitimate circu,stances would include 1. amputation of multiple limbs preventing husband from earning a living, 2. woman is taking life-saving medication that is known to cause evere fetal abnormalities.

 

[bobzills]

Most Americans who practice NFP to avoid pregnancy are sinning by doing so. .

Would that be a mortal sin or a venial sin?

 

[mpi]

Would that be a mortal sin or a venial sin?

Definitely a sin. I am definitely not sure which one. I think most think it is venial, but I think this is worth discussing.

 

[RobertLGarrett]

Most Americans who practice NFP to avoid pregnancy are sinning by doing so. The Catholic church condemns the use of NFP to avoid pregnancy, except when their are grave circumstances. Perhaps legitimate circu,stances would include 1. amputation of multiple limbs preventing husband from earning a living, 2. woman is taking life-saving medication that is known to cause evere fetal abnormalities.

Or…regulation of procreation

2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:

When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.

…

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.

…

2399 **The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. **Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

 

[mpi]

Or…regulation of procreation

SIn. Definitely a sin. Perhaps some people overlook what is sinful because it suits their interest to do so.

catholicism.org/more-on-nfp.html

“The 81-year-old pope’s message Friday to a seminar on the encyclical also reaffirmed that the rhythm method is an acceptable form of contraception for couples in “dire circumstances” who need to space their children.”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4464462

Pope Paul VI taught this in Humanae Vitae:

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.

CCC

2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality

Not motivated by selfishness. This phrase, when applied to the American experience (i.e. the wealthiest nation on the planet), means that the vast majority of NFP is sinful.

 

[BruceK]

That’s all interesting but it doesn’t answer my initial question. Guys, can we please stay focussed on that rather than go off a whole another tangent?

 

[mpi]

That’s all interesting but it doesn’t answer my initial question. Guys, can we please stay focussed on that rather than go off a whole another tangent?

What tangent? NFP, and when it is appropriate, is at the core of an HV debate and relates to you first post.

So, to restate what was said, NFP is a sin in most instances in which it is used by American Catholics to delay procreation.

 

[BruceK]

What tangent? NFP, and when it is appropriate, is at the core of an HV debate and relates to you first post.

So, to restate what was said, NFP is a sin in most instances in which it is used by American Catholics to delay procreation.

And do you have any cold-hard data or specific sources to back up your claim? And how do you know what in the heart of the individual? I thought only God was the one who really knew that.

 

[Red_Beard]

BruceK,

This man you are debating is not worth your time. He is dishonest and is not even considering a single thing you say. You should call him on his discourtesy and wash your hands of the debate.

That being said, there are several points that go together to show the difference between NFP and contraception. Unfortunately, each principal must be applied in order for the whole truth to be understood. I will number each important point. If he doesn’t concede one, there is no point in going on to the next as he isn’t able to understand it. So lets get back to moral theology 101.

1.Some acts are inherently wrong. That is, by their nature, they are contrary to authentic love of God, self, or neighbor. There is no scenario in which committing these acts can be licit. An example is abortion. Committing such an act is always an offense against God. The Church has always affirmed (most boldly in Casti Connubii and HV as well as the regular teaching of the Church throughout history) that Artificial Contraception is inherently wrong and therefore can never be used licitly.

If he is honest, he will acknowledge that at least this principal is not open to debate among Catholics.

2.Some acts are inherently neutral. That is, by their nature, they have no effect upon the friendship between God and man. Any given instance of such an act must be judged by the circumstances. An example is eating. Eating can be good and fasting can be good depending on the circumstances.

People misunderstand what NFP is. It is several acts. Each individual act is the act of “not having relations with your spouse on a given night” which no one in their right mind would say is immoral in and of itself. If that act where inherently wrong, it would logically follow that EVERY married couple is obliged to have relations EVERY night. Clearly it is not inherently (this is the word to use) wrong.

Any honest man should be able to acknowledge that it is at least theoretically possible for it to be licit to not have relations on a given night.

3.Things that are not inherently wrong, can still be wrong in certain circumstances. Starving yourself and gluttony are both immoral.

All this means is that NFP can be abused and that abuse is sinful. DO NOT get into an argument about what constitutes abuse of NFP until he has accepted the principals behind all 3 points.

If the Church where to say that Contraception is ok now but that it wasn’t ok in the past, that would imply that either: 1. God changed his mind (an easily rejected proposition) or that 2. the Church was wrong on an issue of faith and morals for most of it’s history. If he claims #2, then there is no reason under the sun to remain Catholic as the guidance of the Holy Spirit has been proven faulty and therefore all teachings of the Church are called into question. If 2 is true, then it is decicively proven that the Catholic Church is NOT the one true church. He hasn’t understood logic this far though so I don’t expect him to understand this one.

One of the things that I think is important is that he has a ridiculously silly view of the Catholic Church. Then he claims that this silly view leads to self evident logical proofs.

We have a hierarchical Church. It is theoretically possible to have the entire Church be wrong except for the pope. (this would be complicated and it would presuppose that all the wrong members of the magisterium do not condemn the pope’s correct teaching – again, don’t get too deep in this) The proposed fact that 95% (A number that is as ridiculous as most of his dishonest statements) of Catholics in the US disagree with the Church means NOTHING more than that 95% of the Catholics in the US are wrong. It really is that simple.

Good luck,

~ Red Beard

 

[Red_Beard]

And do you have any cold-hard data or specific sources to back up your claim? And how do you know what in the heart of the individual? I thought only God was the one who really knew that.

See, everyone wants to debate the particulars #3 without understanding the basic principals of 1 & 2 first.

“Grave” was a mistranslation in the English version (I believe they translated it from Latin into French and then from French into English which lead to the stronger word here)

Suffice it to say, I disagree that NFP use is generally sinfull and that this is a debate for another thread either way.

~ Red Beard

 

[mpi]

See, everyone wants to debate the particulars #3 without understanding the basic principals of 1 & 2 first.

“Grave” was a mistranslation in the English version (I believe they translated it from Latin into French and then from French into English which lead to the stronger word here)

Suffice it to say, I disagree that NFP use is generally sinfull and that this is a debate for another thread either way.

~ Red Beard

I am Catholic. I accept the 3 principles you outlined in your previous post. I am not dishonest.

For many people in the US, NFP is appropriate. For many it is a sin to continually refrain from relations when you have a 200k annual income, a 400k home and maid and yard service. They have the resources to bring children in to the world - so they should do it. The motives behind many Catholics for NFP is that they have a view of “ideal family size”. This is arrogant.

 

[Red_Beard]

I am Catholic. I accept the 3 principles you outlined in your previous post. I am not dishonest.

For many people in the US, NFP is appropriate. For many it is a sin to continually refrain from relations when you have a 200k annual income, a 400k home and maid and yard service. They have the resources to bring children in to the world - so they should do it. The motives behind many Catholics for NFP is that they have a view of “ideal family size”. This is arrogant.

Cool, I was primarily responding to BruceK because he is debating a dishonest person. Sorry if I was unclear. I don’t think I disagree with anything you’ve said in this last post.

I agree with you that NFP can be abused and the situation you describe sure sounds like an abuse to me. Though there can be a million added factors that change the whole picture - so it can’t just be limited to resources. I don’t think I’d go so far as to say most people who use it are abusing it but then I don’t have anything but my gut to back that up.

It might be interesting to start a new thread to discuss when it’s use is licit and when it is not, but I do think that it clouds the issue on this thread.

God bless,

Red Beard

 

[RobertLGarrett]

I am Catholic. I accept the 3 principles you outlined in your previous post. I am not dishonest.

**For many people in the US, NFP is appropriate. For many it is a sin **to continually refrain from relations when you have a 200k annual income, a 400k home and maid and yard service. They have the resources to bring children in to the world - so they should do it. The motives behind many Catholics for NFP is that they have a view of “ideal family size”. This is arrogant.

This is contrary to your previous post where you said “the vast majority of NFP is sinful.” I think that was an overstatement. Your revised statement is more accurate.

 

[mpi]

This is contrary to your previous post where you said “the vast majority of NFP is sinful.” I think that was an overstatement. Your revised statement is more accurate.

No - many is a non-specific. Many can be 1 million, it can also be 30 million. The vast majority of NFP in the USA is sinful.