Humanae Vitae Debate Part III

  • Thread starter Thread starter BruceK
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P.S. But what I should re-iterate is my interst in abortive vs. non-abortive contraception; and the impact that the discovery of the ovum in the 19th century has on consideration of the ethics (there was a time of course that it was believed that the man planted a “seed” in a woman and that grew in the womb, and so anything that prevented that was believed to lead to a loss of that life). I totally agree that anything that works by causing the loss of the embryo is wrong.
 
Michael96 said:
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?
Click to expand...
I believe that when asked (in general, not on this specific topic), JPII spoke of how important and significant the regular infallibility of the universal teachings of the Majesterium is. In America, it always seems so simple, “someone should do something about that.” But that isn’t how the Church has operated or is likely to operate in the future. It show’s a lack of respect for the Majesterium’s authority. Think about it. There hasn’t been a pope who stated Ex Cathedra that abortion is wrong. Can you honestly claim that the Church’s position on this can change? What about fornication? Clearly not.
Michael96 said:
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*
Click to expand...
This seems akin to saying that no one will listen when you state the truth, no one will listen when you define the truth, no one will listen when you reiterate the truth for 2,000 years so we must shout the truth. It is out there. It is defined. It just hasn’t been shouted at us. We are always free to disregard the truth.
Michael96 said:
  • so it is clear that almost nothing is beyond discussion and debate, unless it is declared simply and clearly infallible).
Click to expand...
This is silly. There is one sense in which everything is always open to debate. “Is the Catholic Church right?” There is another sense in which it is not, “Has the Catholic Church definitively spoken on this?” The later always has a simple yes or no answer. Ask the Church, she’ll tell you. She has said that contraception is not an open debate. She has said abortion is not an open debate. She has said that women priests, and homosexual behavior is not open to debate. This hasn’t silenced the debate. People just ignore her.

You can still debate it, but don’t frame the debate as “I think the Church says this.” The Church is very clear in what she says.

Personally, I believe this whole idea is naive. JPII has said in an official teaching document, with his authority as pope, that the Church does not have the authority to institute women priests. By your sentiment, shouldn’t that have silenced all debate on the matter?

The truth is that people will always debate, no matter how clearly and definitively the Church defines the truth. People are willing to profess that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit against error in one breath and then argue that the Church is wrong on another issue in the next.

It is foolish to insist that only Ex Cathedra statements be considered true.

God bless,

Red Beard
 
Thankyou for your thoughts Red Beard. I think perhaps the messages you get in the US are different from in Europe.

At the end of the day it’s a decision each couple makes themselves and according to their conscience, and hopefully all people approach that decision thoughtfully and prayerfully.

I shall leave it there. God bless you Red Beard.
 
Michael96 said:
At the end of the day it’s a decision each couple makes themselves and according to their conscience, and hopefully all people approach that decision thoughtfully and prayerfully…
Click to expand...
However, people can make a right decision or a wrong decision. In many cases, people will try to justify an immoral act. I thought it was wrong to attempt to justify something which is intrinsically gravely wrong.
 
BruceK, let me know if I need to continue outlining how contraception violates the rest of the Ten Commandments. Life here has been pretty crazy, so I won’t continue unless needed.

God Bless,
Red Beard
 
bobzills said:
However, people can make a right decision or a wrong decision. In many cases, people will try to justify an immoral act. I thought it was wrong to attempt to justify something which is intrinsically gravely wrong.
Click to expand...
I agree people can make wrong decisions; and yet we all make the best decisions we can (for example, being in the Catholic Church is a choice). Ultimately everything we do is driven by free will (we only submit to authorities that we choose to submit to), and that always carries the risk of being wrong. We all hopefully apply experience, personal circumstances, thought, teachings (“head knowledge”), conscience and (possibly most importantly) prayer to everything we do.
 
Red_Beard said:
BruceK, let me know if I need to continue outlining how contraception violates the rest of the Ten Commandments. Life here has been pretty crazy, so I won’t continue unless needed.

God Bless,
Red Beard
Click to expand...
Please continue. 👍
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red_Beard
BruceK, let me know if I need to continue outlining how contraception violates the rest of the Ten Commandments. Life here has been pretty crazy, so I won’t continue unless needed.

God Bless,
Red Beard

Please continue
**As I said please continue. **
 
Here is the sixth Commandment (6. “You shall not commit adultery.”
This Commandment deals with the proper use of our sexuality. CCC 2331-2390

“2337 Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man’s belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman.”

"2339 Chastity includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery which is a training in human freedom. The alternative is clear: either man governs his passions and finds peace, or he lets himself be dominated by them and becomes unhappy. “Man’s dignity therefore requires him to act out of conscious and free choice, as moved and drawn in a personal way from within, and not by blind impulses in himself or by mere external constraint. Man gains such dignity when, ridding himself of all slavery to the passions, he presses forward to his goal by freely choosing what is good and, by his diligence and skill, effectively secures for himself the means suited to this end.’ GS 17”

"2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

“The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.”

"2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfilment. So the Church, which is “on the side of life,” teaches that “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.” “‘This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.’ HV 12”

Contraception violates the sixth Commandment by attempting to separate the biological part of the act from the spiritual, by making an incomplete gift of self between spouses, by forgoing self mastery and allowing a couple to be governed by their passions, by making the fruitful end of marriage alien to the act, and by propagating the notion the the fulfilment of marriage is in the sterile love of man and woman.I’m still working on the rest):
 
  1. “You shall not steal.”
    This Commandment deals with the justice and respect due to another’s goods and keeping promises and contracts . CCC 2401-2410
While the CCC’s on this Commandment refer directly to economic matters, I believe it still hold true in personal matters: "2407 In economic matters, respect for human dignity requires the practice of the virtue of temperance, so as to moderate attachment to this world’s goods; the practice of the virtue of justice, to preserve our neighbor’s rights and render him what is his due; and the practice of solidarity, in accordance with the golden rule and in keeping with the generosity of the Lord, who “though he was rich, yet for your sake . . . became poor so that by his poverty, you might become rich.”

“2410 Promises must be kept and contracts strictly observed to the extent that the commitments made in them are morally just.”

Contraception violates the seventh Commandment by breaking the marital contract and promises made to each other. Each spouse has promised to give all of them self, to the highest degree, for the whole of their life, but through contraception they withhold (by mutual consent or not) what the other is due.
 
  1. “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” “It was said to the men of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’”
    This Commandment deals with presenting the truth in our relations with others. CCC 2464-2487
“2464. . . Offences against the truth express by word or deed a refusal to commit oneself to moral uprightness: they are fundamental infidelities to God and, in this sense, they undermine the foundations of the covenant.”

"2467 Man tends by nature toward the truth. He is obliged to honour and bear witness to it: “It is in accordance with their dignity that all men, because they are persons . . . are both impelled by their nature and bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth once they come to know it and direct their whole lives in accordance with the demands of truth.” DH2

“2483 Lying is the most direct offence against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. By injuring man’s relation to truth and to his neighbour, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.”

“2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.”

Contraception violates the eight Commandment by performing an act of total self gift between spouses, while really failing to give each other the whole package. And the spouses claim to to be fulfiling the ends of the married state, but it is a lie because they are directly against the their ability to conceive children.
 
  1. “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ***, or anything that is your neighbor’s.”

    “Every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
This Commandment deals with the right relation to physical goods and the battle for purity. CCC 2514-2527

“2519 The “pure in heart” are promised that they will see God face to face and be like him. Purity of heart is the precondition of the vision of God. Even now it enables us to see according to God, to accept others as “neighbors”; it lets us perceive the human body - ours and our neighbor’s - as a temple of the Holy Spirit, a manifestation of divine beauty.”

"2520 Baptism confers on its recipient the grace of purification from all sins. But the baptized must continue to struggle against concupiscence of the flesh and disordered desires. With God’s grace he will prevail
  • by the virtue and gift of chastity, for chastity lets us love with upright and undivided heart;
  • by purity of intention which consists in seeking the true end of man: with simplicity of vision, the baptized person seeks to find and to fulfill God’s will in everything;
  • by purity of vision, external and internal; by discipline of feelings and imagination; by refusing all complicity in impure thoughts that incline us to turn aside from the path of God’s commandments: “Appearance arouses yearning in fools”;
  • by prayer:

    I thought that continence arose from one’s own powers, which I did not recognize in myself. I was foolish enough not to know . . . that no one can be continent unless you grant it. For you would surely have granted it if my inner groaning had reached your ears and I with firm faith had cast my cares on you."
Contraception violates the ninth Commandment by taking the ends of marriage, primarily the procreation of children and secondarily the unity of spouses, and reversing them. It perceives the human body as a tool to manipulated, barricaded, suppressed, and mutilated to prevent conception. It abandons the use of chastity, and intends something other than God’s intention for the use of marriage and sexuality.

The Tenth Commandment (“You shall not covet anything that is your neighbor’s”) may be violated by contraception if the couple does not have a serious reason for avoiding conception, but instead seek their own comfort selfishly.

There is it. It is an awful lot, I hope it helps. I’m also working on an epic answer to SUB’s other topics, but we’ll see how that goes.

God bless,

Mrs. Red Beard
 
Take it from me Red Beard going into the forum to directly engage Sub is the equivalent of putting you hand in the blender. But that having said I still occassionally spar with Sub, I thought I share you the latest exchange I had w.r.t.the Natural Law argument of Humanae Vite:

BK: Natural Law is clearly brought up in Humanae Vitae in several of its passages: “The Church … teaches that it is necessary that each conjugal act remain ordained in itself to the procreating of human life” (Hv 11). To act otherwise is to “defy the plan and holy will of God” (Hv 13). <<

Sub: If this is the basis in natural law for prohibiting ABC, then this discussion is over since both statements (HV11 and HV13) are demonstrably false. God created non-human animals so that each sexual act is ordained in itself to reproduction. (Bonobos are an exception that proves the rule) But, since God created humans so that procreation is possible for only 25% of the fertility cycle, we know that God created humans so that each conjugal act is not ordained in itself to the procreating of human life. Each conjugal act is ordained in itself (ultimate end) to the propagation of the human species. (See JP II L&R pg 51) The ultimate end, the propagation of the species, has two separate proximate ends - procreation and unification. And God created humans so that the two proximate ends are not “inseparably connected”. HV refutes its own assertion in HV11 when it sanctions NFP, because if each conjugal act remain[ed] ordained in itself to the procreating of human life NFP would not work. The teaching in HV11 that you quote is false. It is not a teaching from natural law, but rather, it is a rejection of God’s will (natural law) as expressed through His act of creation. Note that NFP works by excluding procreation from conjugal acts thus violating HV11.

BK >> To act otherwise is to “defy the plan and holy will of God” (Hv 13). <<

Sub: We have seen above that it is HV11 that defies the plan and holy will of God. Since both HV11 and HV13 contradict God’s will (natural law) and are false, they cannot serve as a valid basis for conjugal morality.

BK >> In fact, Paul VI compares contracepted sex to rape-“a conjugal act imposed on a spouse.” It is not a true act of love when the desires of the spouse are ignored and excluded. In a similar way, ABC ignores and excludes the will of God, the Author of human life. <<

Sub: As we see above, it is HV that ignores and excludes the will of God, the Author of human life.

BK >> He goes on to argue that man “does not have power over his generative faculties as such, for they by their very nature are directed to bringing forth human life, and God is the source of human life.” <<

Sub: We know that God created humans so that conjugal intercourse serves two separate ends. So this statement like others from HV that you quote is false. Note also that if man “does not have power over his generative faculties as such…” NFP would not work.

BK >> If a couple have sex with artificial birth control they do two wrong things:
  1. they artificially prevent the sexual act achieving one of its natural ends
  2. they deliberately choose to prevent the sexual act achieving its natural end
So obviously there’s nothing “morally neutral” about ABC. <<

Sub: This is an assertion based on demonstrably false premises from HV, and hence is not a valid conclusion. Note however, that since those practicing NFP deliberately choose to prevent the sexual act achieving its natural end [procreation], your statement condemns their practice of NFP as wrong.

BK >> And finally, It is never lawful to exercise an act and reject the end for which the act is designed. Therefore ABC … would … be immoral. <<

You are now returning to a natural law argument. But, note two things:
  1. Since God created conjugal intercourse to serve two separate ends in support of a higher, ultimate end, it is congruent with God’s will to exclude one end (procreation) in achieving the second end (unification) in support of the ultimate end (the propagation of the species). This is precisely the purpose of NFP, which purpose is sanctioned by HV.
  2. If, according to natural law, It is never lawful to exercise an act and reject the end for which the act is designed, then NFP is condemned by natural law since its very purpose is to exclude (reject) procreation from conjugal acts. And HV’s sanction of NFP contradicts natural law.
**As you can see for yourself he’s using the same flawed and flimsey arguments and the same dishonest tactics. So you (or anyone else here) want to give your 2 cents and quick rebuttals your more than welcome. In Christ Bruce K **
 
BruceK said:
Rd Beard take from me. going into the forum to directly engage Sub is the equivalent of putting you hand in the blender. But that having said I still occassionally spar with Sub, I thought I share you the latest exchange I had w.r.t.the Natural Law argument of Humanae Vite:

BK: Natural Law is clearly brought up in Humanae Vitae in several of its passages: “The Church … teaches that it is necessary that each conjugal act remain ordained in itself to the procreating of human life” (Hv 11). To act otherwise is to “defy the plan and holy will of God” (Hv 13). <<
Sub: If this is the basis in natural law for prohibiting ABC, then this discussion is over since both statements (HV11 and HV13) are demonstrably false. God created non-human animals so that each sexual act is ordained in itself to reproduction. (Bonobos are an exception that proves the rule) But, since God created humans so that procreation is possible for only 25% of the fertility cycle, we know that God created humans so that each conjugal act is not ordained in itself to the procreating of human life. Each conjugal act is ordained in itself (ultimate end) to the propagation of the human species. (See JP II L&R pg 51) The ultimate end, the propagation of the species, has two separate proximate ends - procreation and unification. And God created humans so that the two proximate ends are not “inseparably connected”. HV refutes its own assertion in HV11 when it sanctions NFP, because if each conjugal act remain[ed] ordained in itself to the procreating of human life NFP would not work. The teaching in HV11 that you quote is false. It is not a teaching from natural law, but rather, it is a rejection of God’s will (natural law) as expressed through His act of creation. Note that NFP works by excluding procreation from conjugal acts thus violating HV11.

BK >> To act otherwise is to “defy the plan and holy will of God” (Hv 13). <<

Sub: We have seen above that it is HV11 that defies the plan and holy will of God. Since both HV11 and HV13 contradict God’s will (natural law) and are false, they cannot serve as a valid basis for conjugal morality.

BK >> In fact, Paul VI compares contracepted sex to rape-“a conjugal act imposed on a spouse.” It is not a true act of love when the desires of the spouse are ignored and excluded. In a similar way, ABC ignores and excludes the will of God, the Author of human life. <<

Sub: As we see above, it is HV that ignores and excludes the will of God, the Author of human life.

BK >> He goes on to argue that man “does not have power over his generative faculties as such, for they by their very nature are directed to bringing forth human life, and God is the source of human life.” <<

Sub: We know that God created humans so that conjugal intercourse serves two separate ends. So this statement like others from HV that you quote is false. Note also that if man “does not have power over his generative faculties as such…” NFP would not work.

**BK >> If a couple have sex with artificial birth control they do two wrong things:
  1. they artificially prevent the sexual act achieving one of its natural ends
  2. they deliberately choose to prevent the sexual act achieving its natural end
So obviously there’s nothing “morally neutral” about ABC. <<**

Sub: This is an assertion based on demonstrably false premises from HV, and hence is not a valid conclusion. Note however, that since those practicing NFP deliberately choose to prevent the sexual act achieving its natural end [procreation], your statement condemns their practice of NFP as wrong.

BK >> And finally, It is never lawful to exercise an act and reject the end for which the act is designed. Therefore ABC … would … be immoral. <<

You are now returning to a natural law argument. But, note two things:
  1. Since God created conjugal intercourse to serve two separate ends in support of a higher, ultimate end, it is congruent with God’s will to exclude one end (procreation) in achieving the second end (unification) in support of the ultimate end (the propagation of the species). This is precisely the purpose of NFP, which purpose is sanctioned by HV.
  2. If, according to natural law, It is never lawful to exercise an act and reject the end for which the act is designed, then NFP is condemned by natural law since its very purpose is to exclude (reject) procreation from conjugal acts. And HV’s sanction of NFP contradicts natural law.
**As you can see for yourself he’s using the same flawed and flimsey arguments and the same dishonest tactics. So you (or anyone else here) want to give your 2 cents and quick rebuttals you’re more than welcome. In Christ Bruce K **
Click to expand...
 
Sub: “Each conjugal act is ordained in itself (ultimate end) to the propagation of the human species. (See JP II L&R pg 51)”

Love and Responsibility pg 52-53: “The proper end of the sexual urge is the existence of the species Homo**, its continuation (procreatio**), and the love of persons, between man and woman, is shaped, channeled one might say, by that purpose and formed from the material it provides.”

Sub has misquoted L&R and drawn his own faulty conclusions.

L&R pg 57: “This habit of confusing the order of existence with the biological order, or rather allowing the second to obscure the first, is part of the generalized empiricism with seems to weigh so heavily on the mind of modern man, and particularly on modern intellectuals, and makes it particularly difficult for them to understand the principles on which Catholic sexual morality is based… . .The sexual urge owes its objective importance to its connection with the divine work of creation of which we have been speaking, and this importance vanishes almost completely if our way of thinking is inspired only by the biological order of nature… . . It is otherwise with the ‘order of nature’, which means the totality of the cosmic relationships that arise among really existing entities. It is therefore the order of existence, and the laws which govern it have their foundation in Him, Who is the unfailing source of that existence, in God the Creator.”

The middle portions that I omitted are very good and help the explanation, but it is rather long. More later. . . I hope.

~ Mrs. Red Beard
 
Red Beard, here’s the latest from my procontraception protagonsist, apparently he taking Providentissimus Deusand St. Augustine’s quote out of context and obviously doesn’t understand HV.

But, what is the significance of your accurate posts? In his Encyclical Letter: ON THE STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE,(Providentiisimus Deus) under the heading, The Authority of Holy Scripture; Modern Criticism; Physical Science, Pope Leo XIII writes:

There can never indeed be any real discrepancy between the theologian and the physicist [scientist], as long as each confines himself within his own lines, and both are careful, as St. Augustine warns us, not to make rash assertion, or to assert what is not known as known. [52] If dissention should arise between them,here is the rule also laid down by St. Augustine, for the theologian: – Whatever they can readily demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these scriptures of ours, that is Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so. [53]

You have already posted that: “God created humans so that the two ends of sexual intercourse are not inseparably connected”. But instead of accepting that truth that HV12’s “inseparable connection” is false “without the smallest hesitation”, and St. Augustine’s rule as cited by Pope Leo XII in his encyclical, you choose to lie and deny your own accurate posts. Note also that since HV12’s “inseparable connection” is false, JP II’s Theology of the Body which claims to demonstrate from Genesis that the “inseparable connection” is divine revelation is also false. A monstrous piece of sophistry.

**It apears the sophistry is on his part, not mine. Am I right? Help or feedback would be greatly appreciated. **
 
Once again Sub is showing his lack of reading comprehension skills. He twists every text he touches as he bends them to support his position. It’s like when Protestants read the Bible.

His comprehension skills are so low that he can read the Church’s definition of “unitive” and “procreative” a million times and still not come to an understanding of their meanings. He will always insist in arguing based on his own definitions.
If you are using the word “kitty” to describe the pot in a poker game, it would be stupid for me to argue that a “kitty” has four legs and purrs. This isn’t so much a matter of “right” or “wrong” as both uses of “kitty” are valid in their respective contexts. It is a matter of him willfully misunderstanding and scandalously misrepresenting the Church.
Faith and Reason will never contradict each other. Theology and science, if grounded in the truth, will never have grounds to quarrel. The conjugal act, procreation, and union, not merely biological acts that “pass or fail.” Sex is not just a biological or scientific reality that we must defer to the judgments of those who are more qualified. The ends don’t justify means. The will, the act, and the end must all be weighed; both material and spiritual, because man is both.

We’ve gone over this repeatedly and he repeatedly misrepresents the basic terms we are using. No dialogue is possible with a man intent on willfully mistranslating.
All Christian churches until 1930 upheld the evil of contraception. They were either all wrong or all right. Since 1930, the Catholic Church is the only church to continue teaching that contraception is intrinsically disordered and evil. We are either still wrong or are still right. The moral law, like the God it reflects, is unchanging.

If the Church is, wrong on the matter of contraception, a matter that she has taught infallibly through the ordinary Magisterium for 2000 years, then Her infallibility means nothing. All other teachings and beliefs are suspect. And all of Christendom was wrong on a basic issue of faith and morals for 1900 years. I don’t know about you, but I’m not willing to take a position that depends on calling Christ a liar.

God bless,
Mrs. & Mr. Red Beard
 
“Note also that since HV12’s “inseparable connection” is false, JP II’s Theology of the Body which claims to demonstrate from Genesis that the “inseparable connection” is divine revelation is also false.”

Life would be simpler if sub refrained from using words that he has proven himself unwilling or incapable of understanding, such as “inseparable connection.”

This is like trying to explain calculus to a man who just keeps shouting “2 + 2 = 5!”
 
Ok, I will just put this out there, because I think this is the perfect place for it. Because it is so long, I will put it in 8 submissions. I wrote this in search of answers for myself and my wife, of ten years, with whom I have three children.

On Coitus Interruptus: Procreative and Unitive Processes of the Matrimonial Trinity
Introduction

The beliefs of the Catholic Church (CC) are held dear in my heart as my own faith has recently been renewed. I rely on the Rock that is the CC to lift my spirit and give me guidance; however, this instrument of the one true God methodically works in her own way as I serendipitously work in mine. Though the Church is better than me in knowledge and holiness, the Lord God and His Spirit are at work in my heart as they are in all the members of the Church, thus wholly becoming the living body of Christ. The expressions and attitudes of the Church, of which the CC is a part of, are to be fully acknowledged by any and all denominations as the true beliefs of these faithful who are ingrained in the Love of Christ so as not to hold down their gifts of charity and genuineness by old law standards that are entrenched in sacred scriptures and interpreted in as many ways as there are readers. After all, the Holy Spirit sends His message to each unique mind as the wisdom which is needed in that particular life and that particular moment. The fire of the Holy Spirit that contagiously spreads around the world has been lovingly and freely poured out for this very reason.

“Today not one [denomination] stands with CC to maintain the ancient Christian faith on [the] issue of conception and sterilization 1.” As is pertains to heterosexual married couples who have united themselves together to become one flesh through the sacrament of marriage. The CC finds itself in the particular position with a sense of infallibility by Papal consent and considers its strong hold on this concept to be in some way a revelation of its confirmation by the Holy Spirit. However, does withstanding the test of time by refusing to bend and sway to the needs of the faithful make it true? Please, hold the argument that “the so-called ‘individual conscience’ argument amounts to ‘individual disobedience 2,’” because such an argument goes against the teachings of Christ: brotherly love and understanding. There is nothing in this world from a human being, even with grace, that is infallible. The CC claims infallibility on this subject, yet admits that even the Pope “has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position” 4. What advantage does anyone have over another? I tell you that the Holy Spirit is not given to any one person or group of any “higher status” at the loss to those considered “lesser.” After all, God will determine what is considered clean and what is not (Acts 10:15) 3, and no man, despite what he has been ordained here on earth, is solely given the power of God. “It is the Holy Spirit who prevents the pope from officially teaching error 2”; however, the Lord’s gifts are uniquely poured out on all true Christians as fruits of the Spirit to use as He sees fit (1 Cor 12:7-11) 4, and no one holds a monopoly on the Spirit of God! Furthermore, God continues to lift up the poor and meek and bless the humble with His divine spiritual gifts (Luke 1:51-53) 5. The ignorant, the sinners, the vagabond have always been lifted up by God to walk in His name and lead his way to salvation. Not once did any prominent priest or church of old or new covenant enlighten the chosen people. When a believer tells another believer how he feels about God and his relationship with Him, the other should not argue; certainly one who feels the Holy Spirit in his heart knows how he feels better than another.
  1. catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asphttp://www.catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp
  2. catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asphttp://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
  3. Acts 10:15
  4. 1 Cor 12:7-11
  5. Luke 1:51-53
 
In this way I write this letter, but I am not attempting to argue with the beliefs or doctrines of the CC; however, I am trying, through prayer and deep reflection, to decipher how its mandates pertains to me as a Catholic by choice and a Christian in heart. The stance of the CC is that “both forms [of birth control] mentioned in the Bible (coitus interruptus and sterilization) are condemned without exception3.” I agree there is no exception to that which is condemned by God’s law, but to take a few scripture passages and make a law with no exception is harsh. Furthermore, who made this God’s law? God’s law was given to Moses, there were ten, and preventing generative processes is not in violation of any one of them. If one is to claim that physically preventing the procreative process is considered murder, then I would insist that that person insure that all of his generative seed/egg becomes a life lest he/she be a murderer millions of times over! This is not the way God made us. For God, seed and egg are not required. He puts life where life will be: consider the ultimate example of his incarnate Word, our salvation, conceived by the Holy Spirit in the Blessed Virgin Mary’s womb. He forms the life where and when He desires, and then we carry it and nurture it for His glory.
Sin Against Natural Law
Others may proclaim it is a form of adultery since not creating life while having sex violates a natural law and is opposed to the principle of Marriage. Truly, the root of the entire subject on the regulation of birth is the belief that preventing the procreative means of communion between a man and a woman “is a violation of natural law 3.” Pope John Paul II stated that natural law is based on our nature as rational beings (Veritatis Splendor 42) 6. According to St. Thomas, the natural law is ‘nothing else than the rational creature’s participation in the eternal law’ (Old Catholic Encyclopedia I-II, Q. xciv) 7. As mentioned above, there are only Ten Commandments in the Old Testament and these serve as the basis for the synthesis of the natural law. Therefore, there should be some explanation through human and moral reasoning to explain why disallowing conception is in violation to God’s will and destiny for man if we are to call it a sin.
  1. Veritatis Splendor 42
  2. Old Catholic Encyclopedia I-II, Q. xciv
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top