Humanae Vitae debate

[Hubriss]

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.

That’s just where your reality distorted Catholic view comes in. The problem is not “immoral behavior” percieved to be immoral only by minority of the world population. The problem is a rampant disease with no medicinal cure which greatly shortens life expectancy (which greatly affects children btw who haven’t even engaged in “immoral behavior”) that could be stopped simply with modern technology without having to enforce beliefs on other people.

 

[BruceK]

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 Tablet, the British equivalent to the National Catholic Reporter. They clearly have a dissidnet agenda of thier own

religiousconsultation.org/News_Tracker/Catholics,_condoms_and_Africa.htm

Human Rights Watch? Like they don’t have a bias and axe to grind against the Catholic Church? Oh please!!! Why not get some links from L. Boettner, Blansard, Dave Hunt and Jack Chick while you’re at it?!!?

To quote what Fix asked on this same board two month back:
Why people would obey the Church in one area, but not in other areas? Why would someone die because they refuse to use a condom yet engage in immoral sex? People die from AIDS due to the true teaching on contraception? I am to understand people fornicate yet refuse a condom based on principle?

 

[fix]

That’s just where your reality distorted Catholic view comes in. The problem is not “immoral behavior” percieved to be immoral only by minority of the world population.

So, multiple sex partners and such are not immoral? What is your understanding of morality?

The problem is a rampant disease with no medicinal cure which greatly shortens life expectancy (which greatly affects children btw who haven’t even engaged in “immoral behavior”)

And this rampant disease is spread by…the air? Or shaking hands? Or coughing? The children suffer because we adults fail to live as we should.

that could be stopped simply with modern technology without having to enforce beliefs on other people.

Modern technology is great. That does not solve bad behavior.

 

[thseng]

New guy here…

I would venture the opinion that if a person sees no moral problem with promiscuity, it would be impossible for him to even begin to grasp Humanae Vitae. If the notion that sex should be between two married people (married to each other, that is) is alien to you, you’re not going to understand what it means for that sex to be ordered in accordance with God’s plan.

It’s like trying to teach calculus to a kindergartener.

• Tom

 

[BruceK]

This ongoing debate with this other person has mainly consisting of him grasping for straws but I thought I share this most recent exchange because it is very revealing. His words are in bold:

Me: Why do you believe there is a need for artificial birth control?

Him:** I don’t believe that I stated that there was a need for ABC, but the Church teaches that there is a need for birth control. I merely argue that the Church’s edicts against ABC as stated in HV demonstrably are false. But, there is a strong, rational argument from natural law in favor of ABC, whereas there is none in support of the Church’s position. **

Me: >> If not every conjugal act is “fertile” (and we agree with that) and we have an understanding of the woman’s body, why would ABC ever be needed? That is the question you need to seriously address if you are to take thisargumetn to its most logical conclusion. <<

Him: That question is best answered by the 95% of Catholic married couples who reject HV’s edicts and use ABC. But, the answer is quite simple: conjugal intercourse plays a fundamental role in conjugal unity and lifelong marriages and ABC facilitates that role. That’s the reason that God in his act of creation separated the two purposes of conjugal intercourse.

As you can see his last paragraph is quite revealing. Any feedback or comments on this would be greatly appreciated.

 

[1234]

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.

jBenedict won’t apologize for Humanae Vitae.

He’ll ignore it.

 

[JaneFrances]

I’m jumping in a little late here, but here are some thoughts on the latest exchange:

But, the answer is quite simple: conjugal intercourse plays a fundamental role in conjugal unity and lifelong marriages and ABC facilitates that role.

This is an interesting assesment.

Your friend begins by saying “conjugal intercourse plays a fundamental role in conjugal unity.” So, plainly speaking, sex plays a fundamental role in marital unity. This is obvious. And he adds “conjugal intercourse plays a fundamental role. . . in lifelong marriages.” This is not a new thought.

Proponents of ABC have long supposed that if a married couple could only have more sex it would help preserve marriages. The early proponents of ABC, for instance, said that if ABC were permissable then married couples could engaged in more “conjugal intercourse” and marriage would most certainly be more sustainable. It seemed like a plausible arguement.

However, with the legalization and permissability of ABC in both the secular and non-Catholic denominations, we have seen precisely the opposite occur. In the 1960’s, as widespread availability of ABC arrived on the scene, the divorce rate was around 25%. Throughout the next 3 decades, as people were able to participate in unrestricted sex without the threat of pregnancy, the divorce rate steadily rose. Today the divorce rate among contracepting couples has at least doubled. Does your friend really think ABC helps preserve the longevity of marriages?

That’s the reason that God in his act of creation separated the two purposes of conjugal intercourse.

This is another interesting comment. . .where, exactly, does your friend cite God “separat[ing] the two purposes of conjugal intercourse”?

On this one, I would refer back to JanetS’s post comparing NFP and ABC to food consumption. Does your friend suppose that God has separated the two purposes of eating as well? According to natural law and the Divine purpose, are we to enjoy food without regard for the natural nutritive consequences? And conversely, is it within God’s plan that we would be solely preoccupied with nutrition without appreciating his good gift of taste and enjoyment? Your friend’s position is absurd!

God did not separate unity and procreativity. We did that. God, from the dawn of creation, has given us this amazing gift of sexuality. Like with food, he made sex with both pleasurable and life-giving aspects. Whenever we seek to separate those two aspects, that’s our doing, not God’s.

 

[wisdomseeker]

It is more like this. Modern thinking the churche’s teaching is no longer relevant for our times. why should obey the church? let the people do what they will. let the church be conformed to the world, when it should be the other way around. we suffer due to our desobedience to God. the spreading of AIDS is not the churche’s fault but our own fault for not listen to what the church is telling us. we go around having intimacy with whomever appeals to us get diseases then blame the church.

How long Lord are you going to let your church suffer in the hands of these unfaithful and abstinate people?

Lord! we need John the Baptist to return.

 

[BruceK]

jBenedict won’t apologize for Humanae Vitae.

He’ll ignore it.

**Ignore it? I think, if anything we will reiterate it. **

 

[sosayi1960]

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.

The church has no business in our reproductive organs. My wife and I don’t need an old man in the Vatican to tell us what to do with our bodies.

 

[BruceK]

The church has no business in our reproductive organs. My wife and I don’t need an old man in the Vatican to tell us what to do with our bodies.

**However the Church is in the business of teaching morals and in teaching the difference between right and wrong. **

 

[BruceK]

Update on the on-going debate i’m having with my frend in regards to Humanae Vitae and NFP; his words in bold:
**Any form of contraception (including NFP) that is undertaken voluntarily is morally neutral. While there is no difference in the order of moality, there may be a difference in the order of personal perfection. God created humans so that the conjugal act serves two separate purposes - it has two separate orientations. If one wants to argue that ABC is immoral because it deprives the conjugal act of its procreative orientation, I simply point out that NFP does also, and must therefore be judged immoral by the same ratonale. I personally find nothing immoral in NFP simply because it excludes procreation in order to pursue conjugal pleasure (unification). HV(Humanae Vitae) even sanctions that - which sanction contradicts HV11 and HV12 **
So I ask what’s the best response to this?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

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?

It’s not the number of people, but the way we choose to live. The haves 10%, hording 90% of the worlds resources and the have-nots, the other 90% trying to live on the other 10%.

 

[marymol]

Church , as we know , is to help us to become holy , by doing God’s holy will …

There have been many threads that have explicitly shown the basic principle of the intrinsic evil in artificial contraception !

As temples of the Holy Spirit , our actions basically have to proclaim that truth , esp , when it comes to the awesome possibility of accepting a new life - an eternal soul, from God !

Even couples who choose to use ABCs , this is a possibility - just that, in their case , it is more like Judas recieving the Eucharist at the Last Supper - we are told satan entered him - not that God’s grace and mercy protect many from what could be !

Having given into his satanic self centerd ways , he was no longer capable of the repeated offers of true communion from our Lord !

And we know of the consequences !

We are told to fast for an hour before communion - to have the attitude of reverence for what we are about to …

If we willingly broke that fast and then approach the Eucharistic table, with an attitude of defiance , well…we bring on our own condemnation …

As to those who feel that the Church’s teachings on these matters have caused more problems, many are probably familiar with a study from Africa that showed that those countries that have the Church approved abstinence programs fared better , in AIDs epidemic !

A diabetic that craves after more sugar, is not helped by giving into those cravings ; if sexual immorality and all related behavior and the sense of lossof the supernatuaral has led to unnatuaral appeties and behaviors, then the way back , is not difficult to determine !

We , who also know how God comes through, when we are faithful …well, may be we can look at some of what could have beens - like if the parents of a Stalin,a Hitler , Saddam …the persons behind the genocide in Africa … if all these had good holy parents who were conduits of Godly life for their children …(not implying that children of good parents would never have problems !)

And too , when that sense of holiness and reverence is there , our Lord has a way of making the burdens of passions light , that many find that the teachings of Holy Mother Church are full of wisdom !

To bless families with good , holy , peaceful children …to return a 100 fold the fidelity and respect that the parents gave - to each other , to our Lord and His Church …

One of the first steps, to help to break the grip of selfcenteredness that can ruin much in the long term , may be to be faithful in the area of charitable giving !

And giving God enough … in time in worship …in seeking after the truth …

Blessings !

 

[BruceK]

QUOTE=Br. Rich SFO;3490945]It’s not the number of people, but the way we choose to live. The haves 10%, hording 90% of the worlds resources and the have-nots, the other 90% trying to live on the other 10%.
**??! Why are you responding to something I posted way back in December? This has been addresed, I and others have since moved on. I would appreciate it if you can please respond to the query I posted today rather than the one four months back. **

 

[Kay_Cee]

Update on the on-going debate i’m having with my frend in regards to Humanae Vitae and NFP; his words in bold:
**Any form of contraception (including NFP) that is undertaken voluntarily is morally neutral. While there is no difference in the order of moality, there may be a difference in the order of personal perfection. God created humans so that the conjugal act serves two separate purposes - it has two separate orientations. If one wants to argue that ABC is immoral because it deprives the conjugal act of its procreative orientation, I simply point out that NFP does also, and must therefore be judged immoral by the same ratonale. I personally find nothing immoral in NFP simply because it excludes procreation in order to pursue conjugal pleasure (unification). HV(Humanae Vitae) even sanctions that - which sanction contradicts HV11 and HV12 **
So I ask what’s the best response to this?

A huge difference between ABC and NFP is that NFP works within God’s design of human biology whereas ABC seeks to thwart it. It’s true that NFP uses times of a woman’s infertility. However, it is God who created those infertile times. With ABC man creates the infertility, not God.

NFP says, “God, you designed us this way. We accept your design and will work within it.”

ABC says, “God, you designed us wrong. We know better than you do. We will re-design ourselves by adding a ______ (condom, pill, IUD, whatever),”

Like I said, ABC seeks to thwart God’s design. To claim that it is morally neutral is absurd.

Hope this helps!

 

[BruceK]

Here’s the latest on the ongoing saga I’ve been with this anti-NFP antagonist, His words are in bold:
Him **Since you agree that God created humans so that the two purposes of conjugal intercourse are separate (not inseparably connected), then it follows that HV12’s “inseparable connection” is false and HV’s claim that the “inseparable connection” is God’s will is in **fact a rejection of God’s will as known through His act of creation. <<

I replied: A strawman argument. We don’t agree that God created humans so the two purposes of conjugal intercourse are separate. They are no more separate than a human body and a human soul can be. The “separation” you are speaking about is a straw man. We talk about the two “aspects” of the marital embrace, even calling them seperate “meanings”, but the heart of the matter is that fertility is a POTENTIAL.

To which he replies:
**HV12, in the text, speaks of the two significances of the conjugal act: the unitive significance and the procreative significance. John Paul II, in The Theology of the Body, 11 July 1984 audience addressed this.

It is a question here of the truth first in the ontological dimension (fundamental structure) and then - as a result in the subjective and psychological dimension (significance). The text of the encyclical stresses that in the case in question we are dealing with a norm of the natural law.<

Notice that, according to JP II, the truth in the subjective and psychological dimension (significance) results from the truth in the ontological dimension. So the truth in the ontological (objective) dimension is the defining consideration. What is that ontological truth w.r.t. conjugal relations? Ontological truth ultimately rests in the mind and will of God. And, we know that God created humans, unlike virtually all other animal species, so that conjugal intercourse serves two separate purposes: unification and procreation. So we know from His act of creation (See CCC 1147) that God did not will that the unitive and procreative purposes of conjugal intercourse be inseparably connected. And since the truth in the subjective and psychological dimension (significance) results (derives) from the truth in the ontological dimension and cannot contradict it, God did not will that the two significances, unification and procreation, be inseparably connected.

Look at it another way. Who is the subject in the subjective dimension where the truth of the norms of conjugal morality is concerned? It can only be the Creator. And we know his will through His act of creation of humans. As far as humans are concerned, the question is how do we know the subjective and psychological truth (significance) w.r.t. conjugal morality. JP II thought that he was the ultimate subject w.r.t. the norms of conjugal morality. But, JP II was a celibate with no direct conjugal knowledge or experience on which to base his subjective and psychological judgment. Married Catholic couples, however, through their marriage vocation do have direct knowledge and experience of the reality of conjugal life on which to base their judgment. 95% of married Catholics who use birth control choose ABC and reject HVs edicts. From the perspective of 95% of married Catholics who use birth control the two “significances” of the conjugal act are not “inseparably connected”. And their judgment agrees with that of the Creator.**

From what I intially observe is that he is making a strawman of what JPII has said. He also seems to have a few fallacies in his arguments and logic. Would I be correct in assuming this? And finally, what would be the best rebuttal to his counterargument?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Look sophisticated geniuses: the reason that birth control is wrong is that it cuts God out of the life creating process.

No one is bigger than God–cutting Him out is just plain wrong.

Pope Paul VI–no super conservative–could have listened to many Catholic theologians and declared that artificial birth control was OK but later on when it was found that the birth conrtrol pill was an abortafascient:

Such a pronouncement would have proven that the pope would have been wrong on an issue of faith and morals.

Pope Paul VI not agreeing that artificail birth control is OK proves the infallability of the pope on matters of faith and morals if nothing else does!

The separation of marital pleasure from the life creating potential of the conjugal act is an abomination!

The two are intertwined.

The Catholic Church won’t change the teaching for the moral descendents of Onan!

 

[BruceK]

Look sophisticated geniuses: the reason that birth control is wrong is that it cuts God out of the life creating process.

No one is bigger than God–cutting Him out is just plain wrong.

Pope Paul VI–no super conservative–could have listened to many Catholic theologians and declared that artificial birth control was OK but later on when it was found that the birth conrtrol pill was an abortafascient:

Such a pronouncement would have proven that the pope would have been wrong on an issue of faith and morals.

Pope Paul VI not agreeing that artificail birth control is OK proves the infallability of the pope on matters of faith and morals if nothing else does!

The separation of marital pleasure from the life creating potential of the conjugal act is an abomination!

The two are intertwined.

The Catholic Church won’t change the teaching for the moral descendents of Onan!

**AMEN!! You hit the nail on the head, thanks. **

 

[Camron]

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.

Excellent post!