Humanae Vitae debate

[Br.Rich_SFO]

**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. **

He is simply a modern day Martin Luther. Start calling him Luther.

 

[BruceK]

This an example of the ongoing exchange I’m having with this other per 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. His words are in italics.

How can NFP prevent or delay conception if it is open to the transmission of life?

Hondo >> The spouses and the act itself are still left wide open to procreation. They are not taking any action that is directly contraceptive. <<

*This is a non-answer. If The spouses and the act itself are still left wide open to procreation, How does NFP prevent or delay conception. *

Hondo >> NFP does not manipulate the human reproductive cycle; <<

This is false. NFP rejects conjugal intercourse whe the female is most desirous of conjugal intercourse, thus manipulating the natrual fertility cycle.

Hondo >>** The cycle was “designed” that way for a reason. If it were not, all marital acts during non-menstral periods (no pun intended) would be fertile and all marital acts would be procreative, physiologically speaking**. <<

*Very true Hondo. God separated the two ends of conjugal intercourse in his act of creation. If he had not, all marital acts during non-menstral periods (no pun intended) would be fertile and all marital acts would be procreative, physiologically speaking. God created virtually all other animal species so that the sex act and reproduction are “inseparably connected” - the sex act has no purpose other than reproduction. (If you want to know why, Hondo, read Casti Connubii) Hence the “inseparable connection” is false and is in fact a rejection of God’s will and not “God’s will” as HV claims. *

 

[BruceK]

This an example of the ongoing exchange I’m having with this other per 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. His words are in italics.

How can NFP prevent or delay conception if it is open to the transmission of life?

Hondo >> The spouses and the act itself are still left wide open to procreation. They are not taking any action that is directly contraceptive. <<

*This is a non-answer. If The spouses and the act itself are still left wide open to procreation, How does NFP prevent or delay conception. *

Hondo >> NFP does not manipulate the human reproductive cycle; <<

This is false. NFP rejects conjugal intercourse whe the female is most desirous of conjugal intercourse, thus manipulating the natrual fertility cycle.

Hondo >>** The cycle was “designed” that way for a reason. If it were not, all marital acts during non-menstral periods (no pun intended) would be fertile and all marital acts would be procreative, physiologically speaking**. <<

*Very true Hondo. God separated the two ends of conjugal intercourse in his act of creation. If he had not, all marital acts during non-menstral periods (no pun intended) would be fertile and all marital acts would be procreative, physiologically speaking. God created virtually all other animal species so that the sex act and reproduction are “inseparably connected” - the sex act has no purpose other than reproduction. (If you want to know why, Hondo, read Casti Connubii) Hence the “inseparable connection” is false and is in fact a rejection of God’s will and not “God’s will” as HV claims. *

**Is this so difficult that virtually everyone on this forum is stumped for even some sort of a response? I am serious, I would like to get some feedback on this, please? **

 

[Parysa]

Why would someone die because they refuse to use a condom yet engage in immoral sex?

Those poor orthodox Catholics, loyal to the Magisterium, are forced to abandon contraception during their pre-marital sex…

Where did the idea come from that anyone is talking about premarital sex? In some cities, 40-50% of Africans have AIDS. That means married people have it, too.

 

[fix]

Where did the idea come from that anyone is talking about premarital sex? In some cities, 40-50% of Africans have AIDS. That means married people have it, too.

And how did most contract it?

 

[Parysa]

And how did most contract it?

Yes, sex is one way. However, AIDS is not a completely STD. Blood, saliva, urine, etc are also body fluids. And most people in those areas don’t know how it’s spread. Men think they can be cured by having sex with a virgin. There are a huge amount of babies infected from birth. There are a lot of ways for it to spread outside of sex.

 

[CentralFLJames]

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.

Hmm, so in other words the pragmatic thinking goes something like this: ‘We can’t trust people to exercise enough self control to not do self destructive acts. So, the proposed alternative is to give undisciplined and self destructive people condoms; all while knowing that they have at least a 10% failure rate.’

Is this the general idea?

Interesting thought process. So suddenly we are to trust that irresponsible individuals with a proclivity toward self destruction to suddenly develop the self-discipline to not only use condoms routinely but also to use them properly? So the general idea is to encourage them to increase the frequency of sex knowing full well that each time they do it’s like making another throw of the dice at a craps table with about a 10% loss rate? Sounds to me like AIDS/HIV has done more than infect the body - it seems to have spread into the rational minds of any who come in proximity to it.

As long as they are teaching pragmatic immorality as a lesser of evils they should be willing to do themselves what they teach. So it might be an interesting experiment to ask this person if they would be willing to take that teaching to themselves. Ask them if they’d let their own sons or daughters have frequent sex with their best students to prove if the frequent-sex/condom strategy for teaching responsible behavior “holds water”.

James

 

[fix]

Yes, sex is one way. However, AIDS is not a completely STD. Blood, saliva, urine, etc are also body fluids. And most people in those areas don’t know how it’s spread. Men think they can be cured by having sex with a virgin. There are a huge amount of babies infected from birth. There are a lot of ways for it to spread outside of sex.

So, many are catching it from urine and saliva? Then why focus on condoms?

 

[Parysa]

Because, if a married person catches it from, say, blood, then they need a way to protect their spouse.

 

[fix]

Because, if a married person catches it from, say, blood, then they need a way to protect their spouse.

Yes, then that would be abstaining.

 

[Parysa]

I, personally, can’t reconcile lifelong abstinence (between spouses) with 1 Cor 7:5: “Do not deprive one another except by consent for a time, that ye may be free for fasting and prayer, and again may come together, that the Adversary may not tempt you because of your incontinence.” So how can the Catholic Church be so pro-abstinence in marriages? That is really one of the only things making me debate within myself whether I should join the Church or not.

 

[fix]

I, personally, can’t reconcile lifelong abstinence (between spouses) with 1 Cor 7:5: “Do not deprive one another except by consent for a time, that ye may be free for fasting and prayer, and again may come together, that the Adversary may not tempt you because of your incontinence.” So how can the Catholic Church be so pro-abstinence in marriages? That is really one of the only things making me debate within myself whether I should join the Church or not.

How could anyone with a deadly disease that could be transmitted through sex risk the life of their spouse? Do you think the bible verse you quoted means one must engage in sex even if it means killing their spouse? How can you reconcile your interpretation of that one verse with the rest of Scripture?

 

[Parysa]

You do have me there. But what about situations where, say, a woman is not supposed to have any more children (either for her safety or the safety of the child) and the woman’s cycle is too irregular for NFP to be properly used? The only other option the Church gives them is abstinence? People are not perfect. I don’t know many people (or any, that I know of) who, if they were not allowed to have sex with their spouse, would not eventually either divorce the spouse or cheat. They may try very hard not to for a long time, but sooner or later, it would happen. I’m not saying that there aren’t people out there who are exceptional, but I think the majority would do exactly as I’ve predicted.

 

[BruceK]

Here is a bit more of the debate I’ve been having with this catholic disident as mentioned before. My word are in words, his are in italics:
Me:According to Janet Smith, there is a mistranslation in HV11 about always being open to life. She claims that the statement open is translated in both Italian and Latin as “remain ordered in itself to the procreating of human life.” In fact the Catholic Truth society translated that section as it must “retain its natural potential” to create human life. If that is indeed the case the Haring objection falls.

My Antagonist:This translation does not change the fundamental reality. The purpose and intent of NFP is to prevent the procreation of human life; and the Church and HV have called on medical science to perfect this means of of preventing procreation as a result of a conjjugal act. One must recognize therefore, that NFP is ordained to the perfect prevention of the procreation of human life. An, if NFP were not ordained to the prevention of the procreation of human life, it would not work as a means of regulating births. It is also important to note that if each conjugal act is “ordained in itself to the procreation of human life”, then the natural end of each conjugal act is procreation. Since the intent and purpose of NFP is to prevent procreation, its intent and purpose is to frustrate the natural end of conjugal intercourse, which is condemned by Casti Connubii para 54 as “shameful and intrinsically vicious.”

But, look again: “remain ordered in itself to the procreating of human life.” In fact the Catholic Truth society translated that section as it must “retain its natural potential” to create human life. This edict rejects God’s will as expressed in his act of creation. God created humans so that every conjugal act is not ordered in itself to the procreating of human life, nor does every conjugal act have a “natural potential to create human life”. In fact NFP prevents procreation by scheduling conjugal acts during that part of the fertility cycle when conjugal acts do not have a natural potential to create human life.

Me**But as Janet Smith wrote:
It does not mean the spouses must be actively desiring a baby. It means the spouse may do nothing to deprive the act of its ordination or destination to procreation. They may do nothing to “close off” the possibility of the acts achieving its natural ordination. **
**Sex between spouses during the infertile time and abstinence during the fertile period as practiced in NFP does not deprive the act of its proper ordination. **<<

My Antagonist: If the proper orientation of the conjugal act is procreation, then since NFP’s intent and purpose if to prevent procreation, it deprives the conjugal act of its proper ordination. No amount of sophmoric sophistry or pom-pom girl nonsense can change that.
**So what’s the best answer or rebuttal to this arguments? **

 

[Janet_S]

Here is a bit more of the debate I’ve been having with this catholic disident as mentioned before. My word are in words, his are in italics:
Me:According to Janet Smith, there is a mistranslation in HV11 about always being open to life. She claims that the statement open is translated in both Italian and Latin as “remain ordered in itself to the procreating of human life.” In fact the Catholic Truth society translated that section as it must “retain its natural potential” to create human life. If that is indeed the case the Haring objection falls.

My Antagonist:This translation does not change the fundamental reality. The purpose and intent of NFP is to prevent the procreation of human life; and the Church and HV have called on medical science to perfect this means of of preventing procreation as a result of a conjjugal act. One must recognize therefore, that NFP is ordained to the perfect prevention of the procreation of human life. An, if NFP were not ordained to the prevention of the procreation of human life, it would not work as a means of regulating births. It is also important to note that if each conjugal act is “ordained in itself to the procreation of human life”, then the natural end of each conjugal act is procreation. Since the intent and purpose of NFP is to prevent procreation, its intent and purpose is to frustrate the natural end of conjugal intercourse, which is condemned by Casti Connubii para 54 as “shameful and intrinsically vicious.”

But, look again: “remain ordered in itself to the procreating of human life.” In fact the Catholic Truth society translated that section as it must “retain its natural potential” to create human life. This edict rejects God’s will as expressed in his act of creation. God created humans so that every conjugal act is not ordered in itself to the procreating of human life, nor does every conjugal act have a “natural potential to create human life”. In fact NFP prevents procreation by scheduling conjugal acts during that part of the fertility cycle when conjugal acts do not have a natural potential to create human life.

Me**But as Janet Smith wrote:
It does not mean the spouses must be actively desiring a baby. It means the spouse may do nothing to deprive the act of its ordination or destination to procreation. They may do nothing to “close off” the possibility of the acts achieving its natural ordination. **
**Sex between spouses during the infertile time and abstinence during the fertile period as practiced in NFP does not deprive the act of its proper ordination. **<<

This isn’t a detailed answer, but it’s a way to get him to admit that there is a difference between the two methods, ABC and NFP.

First ask him: “if there is no difference between NFP and ABC, why not just go ahead and use NFP?”

Obviously he doesn’t want to use NFP otherwise you wouldn’t be having the conversation.

The fact that he prefers the use of ABC rather than NFP proves that he recognizes there is indeed a difference between the two methods. That’s what the Church teaches as well.

 

[Parysa]

The fact that he prefers the use of ABC rather than NFP proves that he recognizes there is indeed a difference between the two methods. That’s what the Church teaches as well.

If I were to use ABC, I might prefer to use the patch instead of the pill, but they’re still the same thing b/c they do the same thing, just the method of use changes.

 

[Janet_S]

If I were to use ABC, I might prefer to use the patch instead of the pill, but they’re still the same thing b/c they do the same thing, just the method of use changes.

Do you see any difference between these 2 methods to achieve the goal of losing weight 1) through eating a healthy diet, reducing caloric intake, and increasing physical activity.

and 2) through eating as much as you want as long as you force yourself to throw up afterwards.

Same goal right? You want to lose weight. But one method is right and the other is wrong, don’t you agree. One method is harmful; the other is healthy. One works with nature; one works against nature. It’s a similar case with NFP and ABC, but we as a society, are often blinded to the unnatural and harmful effects of ABC.

As far as the patch versus the pill, the only difference between the two is the method of drug delivery; the pharmacology is exactly the same. Also, the patch has a higher risk of producing blood clots.

If you relate the patch vs pill comparison with the dieting methods, the pill would be like sticking your finger down your throat to make yourself throw up while the patch would be like using the drug ipecac to make yourself throw up. Very little difference there.

Practicing NFP is radically different from using ABC, and everybody know it.

Yet you will still hear Catholic dissenters claim that NFP is too difficult, puts too many demands on a couple, requires too much sacrifice, and is not reliable. Then at the same time you’ll hear them claim that NFP is so precise now that one can always exclude the possibility of conception; therefore, there is no difference between NFP and ABC.

How can NFP not be reliable on the one hand and be too precise on the other?

How can NFP involve too many the sacrifices and demands and at the same time be no different from ABC (which involves no sacrifices or demands)?

Did they ever stop to think that maybe the the sacrifices and demands are at the heart of the difference?

Anyway, you might not be a Catholic, so this may seem like a strange idea to you, but Catholics are to look to the Church Magisterium for guidance in matters of faith and morals. The Church is the oracle of Christ. Since the Church Magisterium has clearly instructed Catholics that NFP is a morally acceptable way to space children and ABC is not, Catholics should pay attention to what the Church teaches. The Church teaches in the name of Christ. Therefore, we should listen to the voice of the Church the same way we would listen to voice of Christ.

That’s why I say, if you’re a Catholic and you don’t think there is any difference between ABC and NFP, then by all means use NFP. If for no other reason, do it because the Church says so. After all, if you’re not going to trust the Church to teach what is true, why claim to be a Catholic?

 

[Hubriss]

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?

I think either the original poster or his friend is bringing up/making the wrong argument. Might be miscommunication, but the problem with the RCC’s stance on contraceptives is not that people are “condemned to death and suffering” really, at least not by other people. The problem is that the Church is preaching against birth control and safe sex devices such as condoms which is aiding in the proliferation of AIDS in some parts of the world such as Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa. The RCC and many other christian groups are trying to halt and interfere with real practical solutions to ending the AIDS epidemic which is causing the suffering and deaths of millions of people every year, about half of which are children. The belief that using contraceptives is inherently evil has now become genocidal stupidity. 1/3 of the American federal aid sent to these places is actually going to Christian groups preaching abstenance and teaching that contraceptives are evil. Statistical studies have shown that if condoms were used in every instance of sex in these places, then AIDS would be almost wiped out in no more than a generation.

The anti-birth control proponants have blatantly lied about such things as a 10% failure rate for condoms to stop the HIV virus from passing through.

Any counter argument? There is none because the Church’s actions are a direct cause of the lack of success in handling this epidemic.

Some links on the issue:

hrw.org/backgrounder/hivaids/condoms1204/3.htm

religiousconsultation.org/News_Tracker/Catholics,_condoms_and_Africa.htm

 

[fix]

Here is a bit more of the debate I’ve been having with this catholic disident as mentioned before. My word are in words, his are in italics:
Me:According to Janet Smith, there is a mistranslation in HV11 about always being open to life. She claims that the statement open is translated in both Italian and Latin as “remain ordered in itself to the procreating of human life.” In fact the Catholic Truth society translated that section as it must “retain its natural potential” to create human life. If that is indeed the case the Haring objection falls.

My Antagonist:This translation does not change the fundamental reality. The purpose and intent of NFP is to prevent the procreation of human life; and the Church and HV have called on medical science to perfect this means of of preventing procreation as a result of a conjjugal act. One must recognize therefore, that NFP is ordained to the perfect prevention of the procreation of human life. An, if NFP were not ordained to the prevention of the procreation of human life, it would not work as a means of regulating births. It is also important to note that if each conjugal act is “ordained in itself to the procreation of human life”, then the natural end of each conjugal act is procreation. Since the intent and purpose of NFP is to prevent procreation, its intent and purpose is to frustrate the natural end of conjugal intercourse, which is condemned by Casti Connubii para 54 as “shameful and intrinsically vicious.”

But, look again: “remain ordered in itself to the procreating of human life.” In fact the Catholic Truth society translated that section as it must “retain its natural potential” to create human life. This edict rejects God’s will as expressed in his act of creation. God created humans so that every conjugal act is not ordered in itself to the procreating of human life, nor does every conjugal act have a “natural potential to create human life”. In fact NFP prevents procreation by scheduling conjugal acts during that part of the fertility cycle when conjugal acts do not have a natural potential to create human life.

Me**But as Janet Smith wrote:
It does not mean the spouses must be actively desiring a baby. It means the spouse may do nothing to deprive the act of its ordination or destination to procreation. They may do nothing to “close off” the possibility of the acts achieving its natural ordination. **
**Sex between spouses during the infertile time and abstinence during the fertile period as practiced in NFP does not deprive the act of its proper ordination. **<<

One of the fundamental issues with these debates is that one side refuses to grasp that there is a moral difference bewteen engaging in sex and altering that act and not engaging in sex. In one the act is changed in the other the act is not changed.

The action of NFP does not change the nature of what is taking place one the couple engages in the act. Even if such a couple had bad intentions the act would still not be altered. They may be sinning because of their bad intentions but the means they use are not evil.

The case with contraception is different. No matter how good the intent the means are bad.

 

[fix]

I think either the original poster or his friend is bringing up/making the wrong argument. Might be miscommunication, but the problem with the RCC’s stance on contraceptives is not that people are “condemned to death and suffering” really, at least not by other people. The problem is that the Church is preaching against birth control and safe sex devices such as condoms which is aiding in the proliferation of AIDS in some parts of the world such as Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa. The RCC and many other christian groups are trying to halt and interfere with real practical solutions to ending the AIDS epidemic which is causing the suffering and deaths of millions of people every year, about half of which are children. The belief that using contraceptives is inherently evil has now become genocidal stupidity. 1/3 of the American federal aid sent to these places is actually going to Christian groups preaching abstenance and teaching that contraceptives are evil. Statistical studies have shown that if condoms were used in every instance of sex in these places, then AIDS would be almost wiped out in no more than a generation.

The anti-birth control proponants have blatantly lied about such things as a 10% failure rate for condoms to stop the HIV virus from passing through.

Any counter argument? There is none because the Church’s actions are a direct cause of the lack of success in handling this epidemic.

Some links on the issue:

hrw.org/backgrounder/hivaids/condoms1204/3.htm

religiousconsultation.org/News_Tracker/Catholics,_condoms_and_Africa.htm

You have it backward. The idea one can engage in reckless behavior because one uses a latex device is absurd. The problem is immoral behavior, not what device is used or not.