Humanae Vitae Debate Part III

[bobzills]

“ABC clearly violates the openness to children – it says that this act at this time is not open to children.”

I have a thought/question…

If this statement is true…Wouldn’t we be able to fill in the ABC with NFP? ABC is just as ‘not open for children’ as NFP. The couple makes a decision to make love planning on not making a baby is both scenarios. There is a chance you can get pregnant from NFP and ABC.

Thoughts?

And I read somewhere that NFP has a higher reliability rate than ABC. So, if you want to avoid children, it seems like NFP will help you attain that goal.

 

[Red_Beard]

If this statement is true…Wouldn’t we be able to fill in the ABC with NFP? ABC is just as ‘not open for children’ as NFP. The couple makes a decision to make love planning on not making a baby is both scenarios. There is a chance you can get pregnant from NFP and ABC.

Thoughts?

Again, the difference between ABC and NFP is not in its goal, the spacing/regulation of conception, or it’s effectiveness. The difference lies in what they do to sex and marriage. This article very nicely shows the Church’s history with NFP. Here

As the above poster put it so well, contraception denies the total gift of self between spouses. (I give myself, but not my fertility. I accept you, but not your fertility.) It robs fertility of its purpose: barriers and spermicides by preventing the sperm from reaching their intended end and hormones by preventing the woman from becoming fertile and/or preventing new life from being able to implant in the womb. It distorts the sexual act from a statement of generous abandon to each other and God where pleasure may be enjoyed, to a defensive withholding of parts to seek pleasure.

NFP cannot rob what the act does not have. If a couple are having sex during an infertile time, the act has no potential to create life. The act of total self gift, however, is still intact. And if a just reason exists for the spouses to delay conception, then they abstain, or do not act. Not acting does not change the meaning of the sexual act.

God bless,
Red Beard

 

[Red_Beard]

Also, in case I sound unduly harsh on those that contracept; they may have equally valid, just, serious, or dire reasons to not conceive. Contraception is not the way to achieve that end, though.

God bless,
Red Beard

 

[boreal]

“ABC clearly violates the openness to children – it says that this act at this time is not open to children.”

I have a thought/question…

If this statement is true…Wouldn’t we be able to fill in the ABC with NFP? ABC is just as ‘not open for children’ as NFP. The couple makes a decision to make love planning on not making a baby is both scenarios. There is a chance you can get pregnant from NFP and ABC.

Thoughts?

I apologize for not making this point clearer. From the point of view of the marriage vow
open to children and the promise to love your spouse in sickness and in health, and fertility is a sign of health
I see the difference this way.

Artificial birth control changes the spouses by making them infertile, or placing a barrier between the spouses so as to render their relationship infertile.

NFP in contrast makes no change to the spouse. NFP recognizes, respects and then deals with the spouse as they are.

Perhaps another distinction in reference to NFP might make things clearer. NFP methods are often referred to as Natural Fertility Awareness (NFA) methods instead of Planning. I prefer the Awareness terminology because it’s a much better reflection of what actually goes in such a marriage.

Being aware of your fertility as a couple is quite different from forcing a change to fertility.

 

[BruceK]

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

**You’re right, I have called him out on his utter dishonesty and discourtesy more than once, and it’s getting to the point were I’m about to wash my hands with him Never-the-less, your ansewers are always informative and helpful, as always.
-BK **

 

[RobbyS]

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?:

In what way is the opinion of the majority regarding conjugal relations superior to that of the magesterium? In large part it is based on the teachings of Freud and other modern psychologists regarding the nature of sexual impulse. Are these modern teachings not subejct to examination? They are, after all, based on tenets of modern philosophy that are not easily made compatible with Christianity. Idealism, for instance, which
has run into a dead end, for those practicing philosophy. Freudianism, which has profoundly affected all our notions of sexuality,. It rests on ideas now abandoned by the mental health providers, who no longer believe that any sexual morality has a rational basis since human beings are, after all, no more than intelligent animals. What the popes have called " consumerism" which thinks of human beings as economic beings. A radical individualism that has it that personal sacrifice
ought not to stand in the way of personal self-fulfillment, so that divorce has become epidemic. Indeed, a significant portioin of the priesthood have bought into the zeitgeist, so that they will not educate themselves in the moral theology of the Church so that they can explain it to their parishioners in any convincing way. If the laity has a true understanding of conjugal relations, and if birth control is part of it, then why does sex as often as not drive a wedge between married couples, who so quickly abandon a marriage when their partners stop delivering the sexual pleasure they expect?

 

[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.”
I was sorry to hear that.

 

[BruceK]

“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.”
I was sorry to hear that.

**Don’t be, it’s a false strawman. **

 

[bobzills]

**Don’t be, it’s a false strawman. **

I read the statistic of 90 or 95% from other sources.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

This an example of the ongoing exchange I’m having with this other person as explained in the intial post. Would be interested to know of any feedback on this and suggestions on what would be the best rebuttals to his arguments.

How can NFP prevent or delay conception if it is open to the transmission of life? …] If The spouses and the act itself are still left wide open to procreation, How does NFP prevent or delay conception.

Again, I looking for some good counterarguments to his claims:shrug:

Hi, Bruce. Personally, I hate it when people put forward that argument, because it’s such a stupid one. If someone were to ask me, “How can NFP prevent or delay conception if the act itself and the spouses are 100% open to procreation?” I would answer, “NFP doesn’t prevent or delay conception. The spouses’ subsequent abstinence is what does that. DUH. And the Church has NEVER objected to abstinence as a means of avoiding conception, even - if there is good reason - between spouses.”

Just my two cents. I only read your first post, so I apologize if this has already been said or if my point has for some other reason become moot throughout the course of this thread. God bless, Bruce.

 

[BruceK]

I know much of the teachings contained in **Humanae Vitae are based on natural law as it is with the Church’s stand on contraception, so what I’m looking for is the what would be the best summary for the defense of Humanae Vitae **based on natural law?

 

[Red_Beard]

The Natural Moral Law
CCC1955 The “divine and natural” law shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one’s equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called “natural,” not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature:

Where then are these rules written, if not in the book of that light we call the truth? In it is written every just law; from it the law passes into the heart of the man who does justice, not that it migrates into it, but that it places its imprint on it, like a seal on a ring that passes onto wax, without leaving the ring. The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation. "

Cont. through CCC1960.

For a couple to procreate they must do all that husband and wife do to become father and mother (aka sex). That is all, The couple has no control over the gift of life after they have completed the act, and done thier part. If done in the fertile period and no baby results, was it excluding procreation? I think not. To fulfill the meaning of the sexual act as God created it for humans, “procreation” means doing all that husband and wife must do to become father and mother.

It is one thing to say an act cannot conceive (using NFP to monitor fertility) and saying an act is against conceiving (using a barrier, medication, or surgical procedure to prevent fertility from working or acting as an abortifacient). Like the difference of saying “I cannot fly.” or “I am against flying.”

Contraception used by a couple validly married in the Catholic Church violates seven of the Ten Commandments. The Church understands that each of the Ten Commandments contains the written word of that command and then the positive or negative elements that flow from the written one, some of which is directly from Christ in the Gospel.

1. “You shall Worship the Lord Your God and Him Only Shall You Serve”
   CCC 2101-2103 Has to do with making and keeping our promises and vows to God. We make these promises and vows every time we receive a Sacrament. A couple who has been married in the Church vows before God that they are making a free, total, faithful, and fruitful gift of them self and receiving the same.

By using contraception a couple, by their actions, break the promise to God. The gift they give is not total and, by the means at their disposal, against some of the fruit of marriage.

 

[Michael96]

**Don’t be, it’s a false strawman. **

Here is a survey of British Catholics (taken last year). 15% of Catholics thought the Catholic teaching from Humanae Vitae on use of contraception was “right”.

thetablet.co.uk/article/11769

I imagine (though it is only a hypothesis) that the more densely populated a country the higher the likelyhood of not being convinced by Humanae Vitae.

 

[Red_Beard]

1. “Honor your father and mother.”
   This Commandment refers to respect that is due not just parents by their children, but also children by their parents, and the respect due to those in authority. It covers the nature of the family, CCC 2201-2206. The duties of children CCC 2214-2220. And, the duties of parents CCC 2221. CCC 2222 is noteworthy, “Parents must regard their children as children of God and respect them as human persons. Showing themselves obedient to the will of the Father in heaven, they educate their children to fulfill God’s law.” (italics original)

Children are not a byproduct, or symptom of sex and should not be considered as optional or disposable. A contracepting couple violates the fourth Commandment by acting in a way that can bring forth children and failing to give that child or potential child the respect due to him as a child of God and human person. If a child is brought forth it was an “accident.”.

1. “You Shall not Kill.”
   CCC 2258 “Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.”

This Commandment also covers respect for human life (2270), respect for the dignity of persons (2284), respect for health (2291), and respect for bodily integrity (2297). On Abortion, “2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.” "2271. . .You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish… . . "

2284 “Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.”

2291 “The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense.” “Therapeutic” is defined as being for the treatment of disease.

2297 “. . . Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.”

Contraception, in its many forms, violates this Commandment on many grounds: by acting as an abortifacient, by avoiding parenthood or continued parenthood being grounds to experience pleasure while rejecting an end of the act, by using medications that do not treat or cure a disease (fertility is not a disease), or by having surgical mutilation, or sterilization that does not treat or cure a disease.

 

[Michael96]

I think there’s definitely a difference between forms of contraception that may (at least in part) act by abortion (e.g. the coil, and at least some forms of the pill - possibly all forms of the pill now available) and those that don’t (e.g. condom, vasectomy).

Personally I’m not convinced non-abortive methods are evil, and it is clear that opinion is divided in the Church up to and including Bishops (which is possibly why no Pope feels they can make any unambiguously infallible statement on the matter). When Pope JP-II visitied England even he was very careful and nuanced in his language, avoiding outright condemnation of contraception; rather he condemned a “contraceptive mentality” of seeing sex as just for pleasure.

 

[bobzills]

I think there’s definitely a difference between forms of contraception that may (at least in part) act by abortion (e.g. the coil, and at least some forms of the pill - possibly all forms of the pill now available) and those that don’t (e.g. condom, vasectomy).

Personally I’m not convinced non-abortive methods are evil, and it is clear that opinion is divided in the Church up to and including Bishops (which is possibly why no Pope feels they can make any unambiguously infallible statement on the matter). When Pope JP-II visitied England even he was very careful and nuanced in his language, avoiding outright condemnation of contraception; rather he condemned a “contraceptive mentality” of seeing sex as just for pleasure.

I thought it was an infallible decision that artificial contraception was wrong? Are you saying that the Catholic teaching on this is flexible and can change?

 

[Michael96]

I thought it was an infallible decision that artificial contraception was wrong? Are you saying that the Catholic teaching on this is flexible and can change?

I haven’t seen such an unambiguous statement. As for change - it seems there has always been discussion and debate around modern contraceptive techniques. I certainly have never experienced a time when the subject wasn’t the subject of debate and disagreement amongst both laity and priests.

 

[bobzills]

I haven’t seen such an unambiguous statement. As for change - it seems there has always been discussion and debate around modern contraceptive techniques. I certainly have never experienced a time when the subject wasn’t the subject of debate and disagreement amongst both laity and priests.

This sounds to me like a Protestant teaching on the subject. My understanding was that the official Roman Catholic teaching is that it is a mortal sin to use any form of contraception.

 

[Red_Beard]

This is a misrepresentation of the Church’s position on contraception.

Contraception predates Christianity. It has also been condemned by the Catholic Church since the Church has been in existance. I doubt you can find a more clear example of the ordinary infallibility of the Church which comes from the universal teaching of the majesterium. Ex Cathedra statements account for the overwhelming minority of infallible Catholic teachings, yet for some reason, people today seem to be satisfied with nothing else. It has been defined infallibly. It cannot change.

CCC:

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.

Having a bishop argue about it is immaterial. Would a bishop arguing about Transubstantiation mean that the Church isn’t sure about it? Clearly, this is hogwash.

The Church is clear on this matter. You can disagree if you like, but please don’t misrepresent the teachings of the Church. You may lead others into error.

God bless,

Red Beard

 

[Michael96]

I do wonder why (when most European Catholics reject parts of Humanae Vitae and when there is onging debate amoungst both laity and priests) no Pope seems willing to put a complete stop to the debate by making a declared infallible statement? They are surely aware that few take the ordinary magisterium as seriously as clear statements of infallibility (people up to Cardinals are no openly questioning the documents of the last Vatican council* - so it is clear that almost nothing is beyond discussion and debate, unless it is declared simply and clearly infallible).

(*Of course we each have our own view on what is open to question and what is not).

God bless

Michael