Humanae Vitae debate

  • Thread starter Thread starter BruceK
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BruceK

Guest
I’ve been having this ongoing debate with this person who rejects Humnanae Vitae** and natural family planning(NFP), and the crux of his argument is this: “Enormous numbers of couples and families in the poorest countries in world are condemned to death and suffering because of a false Church teaching, but non one in Vatican seems to care.”
I know this is a canard so what is the most effective rebuttal and refutation I can use to counter this charge?
 
BruceK said:
I’ve been having this ongoing debate with this person who rejects Humnanae Vitae** and natural family planning(NFP), and the crux of his argument is this: “Enormous numbers of couples and families in the poorest countries in world are condemned to death and suffering because of a false Church teaching, but non one in Vatican seems to care.”
I know this is a canard so what is the most effective rebuttal and refutation I can use to counter this charge?
Click to expand...
Is this friend of yours a Catholic?
 
BruceK said:
I’ve been having this ongoing debate with this person who rejects Humnanae Vitae and natural family planning(NFP), and the crux of his argument is this: “Enormous numbers of couples and families in the poorest countries in world are condemned to death and suffering because of a false Church teaching, but non one in Vatican seems to care.”
I know this is a canard so what is the most effective rebuttal and refutation I can use to counter this charge?
Click to expand...
I would add the premise is false. Are people really the problem? Is suffering the result of too many people on earth?

Less people=happiness?
 
fix said:
I would add the premise is false. Are people really the problem? Is suffering the result of too many people on earth?

Less people=happiness?
Click to expand...
**He subscribes to the Malthusian theory. He also said this,
“The public perception of the Magisterium and its credibility is determined solely by its own behavior. Nothing has done more to discredit the Magisterium than Humanae Vitae and Pope John Paul II’s obsessive, irrational defense of it. Pope Benedict XVI should rescind HV and apologize to the Church and the world - especially those in undeveloped countries that have been sacrificed to a false doctrine in the face of the AIDS epidemic.”
Just to give you an idea where he’s coming from. **
 
BruceK said:
He subscribes to the Malthusian theory. He also said this,
"The public perception of the Magisterium and its credibility is determined solely by its own behavior.
Click to expand...
Huh? This is confusing thinking. If people misperceive does that make the misperception accurate?**
Nothing has done more to discredit the Magisterium than Humanae Vitae and Pope John Paul II’s obsessive, irrational defense of it. Pope Benedict XVI should rescind HV and apologize to the Church and the world - especially those in undeveloped countries that have been sacrificed to a false doctrine in the face of the AIDS epidemic
Click to expand...
."
Just to give you an idea where he’s coming from. **People die from AIDS due to the true teaching on contraception? Again very confusing. I am to understand people fornicate yet refuse a condom based on principle?
 
Nothing has done more to discredit the Magisterium than Humanae Vitae and Pope John Paul II’s obsessive, irrational defense of it. Pope Benedict XVI should rescind HV and apologize to the Church and the world - especially those in undeveloped countries that have been sacrificed to a false doctrine in the face of the AIDS epidemic."
Just to give you an idea where he’s coming from.

People die from AIDS due to the true teaching on contraception? Again very confusing. I am to understand people fornicate yet refuse a condom based on principle?
I Think what this person is refering to is the Church’s stand against condom use in 3rd world countries to prevent Aids and other infectous diseseas.
 
The Church is spending most of its time preaching abstinence as opposed to using condoms to prevent the spread of HIV. Now, I would have a hard time believing that someone who is having sex outside of marriage would feel scandalized by also using a condom.

And the truth is, a condom isn’t a silver bullet against AIDS. There’s still a chance you can get it - condoms break, slip off, they aren’t used properly, etc. There’s around a 2-4 percent chance (maybe a little lower, depending on the study) that you could still be infected by any of the above accidents.

Now, I don’t know about you, but I don’t even think I’d like those odds for an act I’d do only once. If I had a one and fifty chance of contracting a disease that would kill me (especially without the access to medical care), I don’t think I would label a condom as “incredibly effective.” Sounds like playing Russian roulette with a 50 chambered gun.

Now, the issue of condom use among married couples, one of whom is infected with HIV and the other is not, is a fair question. From my understanding, the Vatican is contemplating this issue carefully because using a condom could be legit under the moral principle of double effect.
 
BruceK said:
I Think what this person is refering to is the Church’s stand against condom use in 3rd world countries to prevent Aids and other infectous diseseas.
Click to expand...
I know. Ask why people would obey the Church in one area, but not other areas? Why would someone die because they refuse to use a condom yet engage in immoral sex?
 
EB4304 said:
The Church is spending most of its time preaching abstinence as opposed to using condoms to prevent the spread of HIV.
Click to expand...
And the medical experts have finally admitted that the Church is right.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=205093
Now, I don’t know about you, but I don’t even think I’d like those odds for an act I’d do only once. If I had a one and fifty chance of contracting a disease that would kill me (especially without the access to medical care), I don’t think I would label a condom as “incredibly effective.” Sounds like playing Russian roulette with a 50 chambered gun.
Click to expand...
Now, the issue of condom use among married couples, one of whom is infected with HIV and the other is not, is a fair question. From my understanding, the Vatican is contemplating this issue carefully because using a condom could be legit under the moral principle of double effect.
Click to expand...
No, it’s not. Contraception is intrinsically evil. The “principle of double effect” says that it’s morally permissible to **tolerate the existence of **a lesser evil which one neither desires nor creates, if the only possible way of removing the lesser evil would cause a greater evil. It is never permissible to do anything intrinsically evil no matter how good the intended result.

Come on, apply your own Russian roulette analogy. How could it possibly be a loving act for a HIV+ person to deliberately create a quite large chance of killing his spouse? Shucks, surely even anyone with a cold sore on his lip would avoid kissing anyone, as the more loving thing to do.
 
“Enormous numbers of couples and families in the poorest countries in world are condemned to death and suffering because of a false Church teaching, but non one in Vatican seems to care.”
Click to expand...
Most people in the Third World including Catholics just ignore Humane Vitae.🤷
NFP are a almost like a cult and very rare.
The truth is that HV has created a hole of authority in sexual mores for the CC.
But calling altogether false is injust, it has Biblical and Patristic roots. The CC unlike other Churches do not like to throw things down the window. “Oh after saying this for 2000 years ABC was a sin, we were wrong, contracept at will”. But a smarter and more realistic solution that Humane Vitae should be found.
 
Petergee said:
And the medical experts have finally admitted that the Church is right.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=205093

No, it’s not. Contraception is intrinsically evil. The “principle of double effect” says that it’s morally permissible to **tolerate the existence of **a lesser evil which one neither desires nor creates, if the only possible way of removing the lesser evil would cause a greater evil. It is never permissible to do anything intrinsically evil no matter how good the intended result.
Click to expand...
The double effect principle does include, and is really focused on, acts that create a lesser evil effect.

The principle can be complex, but in a nutshell, an act that produces an evil effect is allowable if the act is good or at least morally neutral, the intended effect is good, the good effect outweighs the bad effect, and the good effect does not flow directly from the bad effect. Some would add that there is no other reasonable means to accomplish the task, but that is not always analyzed.

Whether condoms to reduce AIDS qualifies is a complex question and I have read that the Church has thougth about it. So far the answer is no. The whole thing keys off of your characterization of the act. If you start by saying the ‘act’ analyzed is ‘using barrier method contraception’, then the Church says that is intrinsically evil and you have to stop. To me it makes more sense to say that the act is ‘blocking the exchange of bodily fluids’, which is neutral. Then you have a good intended result (blocking AIDS) and a bad side result (barrier contraception). You can still fail if you think that blocking the virus flows directly from the contraceptive effect, or if you subscribe to the idea that other methods are as good or better.

Anyway, that has nothing to do with whether the Church’s teachings on artificial birth control and NFP are correct. I think there are a lot of good arguments against, but neither Malthusianism or AIDS are among them.
 
Most people in the Third World including Catholics just ignore Humane Vitae.
NFP are a almost like a cult and very rare. Says who? and what’s your source for this?
The truth is that HV has created a hole of authority in sexual mores for the CC.
But calling altogether false is injust, it has Biblical and Patristic roots. The CC unlike other Churches do not like to throw things down the window. “Oh after saying this for 2000 years ABC was a sin, we were wrong, contracept at will”. But a smarter and more realistic solution that Humane Vitae should be found. Like what? Are you saying that HV is totally unrealistic?
 
fix said:
I know. Ask why people would obey the Church in one area, but not other areas? Why would someone die because they refuse to use a condom yet engage in immoral sex?
Click to expand...
Exactly.

That’s like saying a man killed his wife because he was Catholic and didn’t believe in divorce.

Ask your friend if he ever read HV. The Church won’t rescind HV precisely for the reason that all the predictions Pope Paul VI made came true. He predicted the widespread use of contraception would:

–open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards.

–take away incentives (especially from the young) to keep the moral law.

–lead to women being used as mere instruments for men’s satisfaction.

–lead to government authorities imposing the use of contraception on everyone.

The Church teaches what is true; it is the modern world’s view of sex that is disordered and is causing all the problems.
 
inthecloud said:
Most people in the Third World including Catholics just ignore Humane Vitae.🤷
NFP are a almost like a cult and very rare. And what exactly is your source for this claim?
The truth is that HV has created a hole of authority in sexual mores for the CC.
But calling altogether false is injust, it has Biblical and Patristic roots. The CC unlike other Churches do not like to throw things down the window. “Oh after saying this for 2000 years ABC was a sin, we were wrong, contracept at will”. But a smarter and more realistic solution that Humane Vitae should be found.
Click to expand...
**Such as? What do you suggest? And are you saying HV is unrealistic? **
 
Oh, I think I’m starting to follow the logic.

Those poor orthodox Catholics, loyal to the Magisterium, are forced to abandon contraception during their pre-marital sex and thus the Church is responsible if they catch any disease (such as AIDS)… :rolleyes:
 
GandalfTheWhite said:
Oh, I think I’m starting to follow the logic.

Those poor orthodox Catholics, loyal to the Magisterium, are forced to abandon contraception during their pre-marital sex and thus the Church is responsible if they catch any disease (such as AIDS)… :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
**Yep, they try to find any excuse possible, wonders never cease.😃 **
 
As I said before, I am having this ongoing debate with catholic dissident over artificial birth control(abc) and Humanae Vitae, the latest claim he makes is this:

“According to one of the accounts of the Commission proceedings, Pope Paul VI offered to issue an instruction that married couples who use ABC were to be left undisturbed. If it [ABC] was even remotely immoral or amoral, Pope Paul would certainly not have made such an offer.”

From Turning Point pg 127:

Later that same day, the majority of the bishops and cardinals gave their formal assent to the Majority Report. … Only one woice was was heard in opposition. Colombo, the Pope’s theologian, said, “His Holiness will never accept the proposition that contraception is not intrinsically evil”. Then he added, “He [the Pope] would agree only to this: a letter to the world’s bishops telling them their people are not to be disturbed. It is not necessary to disturb couples who practice contraception; close your eyes!”

Is anyone familiar with the book Turning Point and does anyone here know about this claim, as to whether there’s any truth to it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top