Humanae Vitae debate

[BruceK]

I’m back again, as you may recall I’ve been having an on-and-off debate with this protagonist over the issue of Humanae Vitae, NFP and ABC. Well with the 40th anniversay of HV did a review of a article for the latest issue of First Things the article is titled "
The Vindication of Humanae Vitae" by Mary Eberstadt.
For reference purpose here’s a link to the article in question:
firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6262

My progagonist’s critique is as follows:
**There are (at least) three fundamental flaws in this article (and similar arguments): 1. It confuses the sexual revolution with the issue of contraception, 2. It equates correlation with causation, and 3. it is a consequentialist argument .

1. There is a distinct difference between the sexual revolution and the issue of the morality of ABC. The sexual revolution was a moral revolution, not a technological revolution. It was a rejection of conventional moral standards and an acceptance of the idea that sex was a pleasure to be enjoyed to the fullest independent of marriage and family. The sexual revolution would have proceeded if the Pill had never been invented. Playboy Magazine and other harbingers of the sexual revolution were on the newsstands years before the advent of the Pill.

There was no contraceptive revolution, contraceptives were already available. The Pill, which happened to coincide with the sexual revolution, was an innovation in birth control technology. Did it support the sexual revolution? Absolutely! Just as a 100% effective NFP would have, and existing contraceptives did. The Pill was just significantly more convenient and reliable from a female perspective. But it was the sexual revolution that lead to the widespread use of contraceptives outside of marriage and even to their improper use within marriage

1. Any university level statistics textbook will state that correlation does not imply causation. Yet defenders of HV, having no basis for HVs edicts in right reason, truth or reality, try to assert a causality between ABC and abortion, divorce, illigitimate children, male alcoholism, etc., wherever a correlation can be found. This is a false argument
   The 50s and 60s were a time that saw the confluence of a number of sociological trends: millions of soldiers back from WWII, the rise of the sexual revolution, improving economic conditions, women entering universities and the workplace in greater numbers, a better educated laity unwilling to just pay, pray and obey, the development of the Pill, the development of NFP, etc. The causality behind the effects predicted by Paul VI lies in the sexual revolution, not in contraception per se. The availability of contraception or the Pill did not cause the sexual revolution, it was already ongoing. There was a sexual revolution following WWI the roaring 20s - but no innovation in contraceptive technology preceded or caused it. The rhythm method introduced in 1930 was an innovation in contraception methodology. Yet, no sexual revolution followed its introduction and Pius XII sanctioned its use 21 years later reversing Casti Connubii. I have seen no evidence that the 1930 Lambeth Conferences sanction of contraception led to all of the dire consequences that Paul VI predicted. That took the post-WWII sexual revolution. This articles assumption that correlation means causation is a false basis for understanding the effects of contraception on behavior.
2. This argument is a consequentialist argument. That raises two problems. First, John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor (pg 41) and HV24 reject this type of argument. Second, to be valid, a consequentialist argument would have to correctly identify the causes of the consequences. This article falsely identifies contraception, instead of correctly identifying the sexual revolution as the cause of the consequences that Paul VI warned about.
   HV was about the morality of married Catholics using ABC. But this has gotten lost in the retrospectives. John Paul II says that the morality of an act must be judged by the nature of the act itself and not by its consequences. Yet HVs supporters are trying to justify its edicts w.r.t. married Catholics using ABC, by citing what it falsely claims are its consequences.

Suppose, that Paul VI had followed the advice of the Commission (Majority) Report, sanctioned the use of ABC by married Catholics for the same right reasons that Pius XII sanctioned rhythm. Then the Church might not be so divided and the last 40 years and John Paul IIs papacy could have focused on fighting the real cause of the current conditions the sexual revolution - instead of pretending that eliminating contraceptives would solve the worlds problems. The cause of the problems lies in the hearts of people, not in whether Catholic couples use NFP or ABC. The Church squandered its moral authority when it issued HV, and left itself impotent in the fight against the sexual revolution. That fight will be won or lost in peoples hearts not in the drugstores.

Suppose that the Pill didnt exist, but Dr. Hilgers had perfected NFP in the 1960s so that it was 100% effective as Pius XII and Paul VI recommended. Then the sexual revolution had adopted NFP, and women and college girls simply scheduled their adultery and fornications according to their fertility schedules. Would defenders of HV now be arguing that based on those consequences, Pius XII and Paul VI were wrong? That NFP caused these consequences? No. They would be arguing that the problem was in peoples hearts , not in the method that they used to sin**
Any feedback, counterarguments or rebuttals be appreciated.

 

[marymol]

N.F.P , to plan a smaller family size, requires a good bit of wisdom and discipline and functions the best when the sacramental aspect of human sexuality is given its place ; it needs commitment from two mature persons .

   Even if  a couple might start out wanting primarily a smaller family size, when the above objectives or needed character traits are kept in  mind, it sqelches out the root of selfcenterdness with its inherent tendency to want to use each other and thus  helps the couple to see the whole person and their actions  with all the God given potential and dignity ,   as of  someone who is loved , by The Person of Christ , all the way from The Cross !

Thus, it can help families and societies to become truly God oriented and to be rid of the destructive self centerdeness at all levels .

Very unlikely that anyone who has chosen to leave all that truth aside and has chosen to become a slave to the passsing passions would be capable of NFP.!

And persons and nations, even those with a Christian background, can fall into very hedonistic degrading lifestyles as a result - seems the lifestyle depicted in the richest city in the present world - Moscow - may be a glimpse of this !

Blessings !

 

[BruceK]

N.F.P , to plan a smaller family size, requires a good bit of wisdom and discipline and functions the best when the sacramental aspect of human sexuality is given its place ; it needs commitment from two mature persons .

   Even if  a couple might start out wanting primarily a smaller family size, when the above objectives or needed character traits are kept in  mind, it sqelches out the root of selfcenterdness with its inherent tendency to want to use each other and thus  helps the couple to see the whole person and their actions  with all the God given potential and dignity ,   as of  someone who is loved , by The Person of Christ , all the way from The Cross !

Thus, it can help families and societies to become truly God oriented and to be rid of the destructive self centerdeness at all levels .

Very unlikely that anyone who has chosen to leave all that truth aside and has chosen to become a slave to the passsing passions would be capable of NFP.!

And persons and nations, even those with a Christian background, can fall into very hedonistic degrading lifestyles as a result - seems the lifestyle depicted in the richest city in the present world - Moscow - may be a glimpse of this !

Blessings !

**Thanks but none of this really directly addressed my post. **

 

[BruceK]

Here’s the latest from my exchange with the progagonist on this issue. As you will see his comments are very revealing-His words are in bold:

** God’s will is known by the fact that He created humans so that it would not be true God’s will w.r.t. the “inseparable conection” is best.**And God’s will confirms the discernment of the 95% of married Catholics who use birth control, who have direct knowledge and experience of conjugal life, and who, following their consciences based on that knowledge and experience, also reject HV24.and HV in general.

: “But if your right in what you say w.r.t God’s will then there are some inexcapale implications you must confront: In the early part of the 20th century 95% of Catholics would have been opposed to the practice of ABC”.

**Accepting 95% for the sake of argument, it would be correct to say that 95% accepted the Churchs position on the morality of birth control **

Also, up to the early 20th century all christian churches, sects and denominations were opposed to ABC. <<

This may be true. It is also true that until the second half of the 20th century, the Catholic Church had never formally condemned slavery.

Me: 1. Dose God determine his will by sticking out his thumb and see which way the wind the blows? So God therefore may have said one thing on a issue then after centuries or thousands of years he changes his mind and reverses himself on that issue, thus God is like a Democratic presidential candidate; he’s a flip-flopper?! <<

I believe Catholic theology teaches that God’s will is immutable. Sounds right to me.

1. Me: Or that all Christiandom was so incompetent that they couldn’t acurately figure out God’s will until the later half of the 20th century? But any of these of implications would be as what Cardinal John Henry Newman would say is “An intolerable paradox.” Well what say you? <<

I say its nonsense, not an intolerable paradox. Christiandom is learning Gods will little by little as time goes by. Underscore that this issue is our understanding of Gods immutable will, not whether or not Gods changes His mind.

]But, lets be specific. To understand Gods will w.r.t. conjugal morality through His creation of humans, humans first had to reach an adequate understanding of the human reproductive system in all of its aspects (physiological, psychological and spiritual) as God created it. Christiandom was not competent to do so until the first half of the 20th century. While their knowledge is not complete, in the first half of the 20th century, they arrived at a sufficiently comprehensive understanding, to also appreciate that God did not will that procreation be the only or even the primary purpose of conjugal intercourse, or that the two ends of conjugal intercourse be inseparably connected. Hence, Pope Pius XII in 1951 reversed the Churchs 2,000 year old teaching against any form of birth control and sanctioned rhythm to exclude (separate) procreation from conjugal intercourse. /B

I know there’s a least a few flaws in his arguments, specifically what are the flaws and what is rebuttal to his arguments?

 

[marymol]

Apologies; being not a great apologetic, I would not be the right person to provide point by point answers !

Those words - ’ My burden is light ’ is hopefully good enough for many ( not sure that 95% is a corrcet # either !) and even if many do reject the teachings of The Church , may be it only shows the general lukewarmness in The Church and inadequate catechesis !

Since we do have plenty of resources available for the latter now ( atelast for those who frequent these forums ) it seems to come down to the basic issues of enough love and faith - to see oneself and others as sacred ; that any conjugal act even with use of ABCs have the potential to bring in another human person - something to be kept in mind with awe and reverence ( or fear and trembling !) .

And who knows how far reaching the implications are , since as many have already mentioned - how so much of the life style disorders in our culture is linked to the refusal of this one basic truth !

NFP allows and even fosters the truth , that God is The Author of every life and thus aids in helping persons to give in more and more to God’s saving control and love in all other areas too ; is not that what life is about !

Peace !

 

[Petergee]

I only have time for a couple of points now, but they show that your protagonist does not know what he’s talking about:

1. Pius XII did not “reverse Casti Connubii 21 years later” to sanction the “rhythm method”. Periodic abstinence has always in principle been permitted (not necessarily encouraged) by the Church, including explicitly in Casti Connubii, regardless of the various advances in techniques of NFP which have been invented over the years.
2. It is absolutely preposterous to assert that “until the second half of the 20th century, the Catholic Church had never formally condemned slavery.” The Church has always explicitly opposed racial and chattel slavery and opposed all forms of forced servitude. Very explicitly in official Papal decrees (and punishable by automatic excommunication and requiring compensation to be paid to those enslaved) since long before Columbus sailed.

Your protagonist is obviously using the old canard of claiming that “the Church has radically changed its supposedly unchangeable doctrines on other moral issues” and so claiming that it’s possible for the Church to “change” the immorality of contraception. It hasn’t, it can’t and it won’t.

 

[Petergee]

Suppose that the Pill didnt exist, but Dr. Hilgers had perfected NFP in the 1960s so that it was 100% effective as Pius XII and Paul VI recommended. Then the sexual revolution had adopted NFP, and women and college girls simply scheduled their adultery and fornications according to their fertility schedules. Would defenders of HV now be arguing that based on those consequences, Pius XII and Paul VI were wrong? That NFP caused these consequences? No. They would be arguing that the problem was in peoples hearts , not in the method that they used to sin

Actually knowledge of the cycles have been such that it HAS been quite possible, in fact technically quite easy, since the late 1960s for people to simply schedule their adultery and fornications according to their fertility schedules in order to avoid procreating. But apparently very few people have done so. A pretty clear indication that NFP is incompatible with lust, which demands to be satisfied NOW, not “maybe next week”. If people wanted to give themselves fully they would wait until marriage.

Come on, even the greatest proponents of the Sexual Revolution celebrate as an obvious fact that the advent of highly effective, cheap, freely available, easy to use contraceptives which have no obvious physical effect on the sex act itself, was the #1 cause of the Sexual Revolution.

 

[BruceK]

B]Here’s the latest installment of my debate with my protagonsist on the issue of HV and Caontraception:

Him(Protagonist): it is the intention of the NFP practitioners that their practice 100% exclude procreation. The fact that NFP is not 100% effective is irrelevant. <<

Me (BruceK) >> Since you made the claim back it up: show a direct quotation from such a practitioner that NFP is 100% effective in excluding procreation. <<

Him: This is a good example as to just how stupid and dishonest ou are. I did not claim that any practitioner held that NFP is 100% effective in excluding procreation. I said that it is the intention of the NFP practitioners that their practice 100% exclude procreation. Do you realy believe that couples practice NFP intending to conceive 1 out of every 50 acts of conjugal intercourse? A third grader can understand that if NFP did not exclude procreation from conjugal intercourse, it could not prevent (births (procreation). <<

Me >> It can never 100% exclude procreation, agreed. <<

Him: Your answer is totally irrelevant to the fact that a third grader can understand that if NFP did not exclude procreation from conjugal intercourse, it could not prevent (births (procreation). HV24 calls on medical science to make it 100% effective. If it becomes 100% effective, is it then immoral? JP II in L&R states unambigiously that NFP excludes procreation. End of story.

Me: HV24:Men of Science- does not call on medical science to make NFP 100% effective. What it actually says is, “It is supremely desirable, and this was also the mind of Pius XII, that medical science should by study of natural rhythms succeed in deteriming a sufficiently secure as well as a moral basis for the regulation of birth.” That’s not exactly the same thing as sayin 100% effective in excluding procreation and you know it! <<

Him: Logically, it is the same thing. If HV24 did not mean 100%, then what was their limit? 98%? 99%? 99.999%? Whatever their limit, many forms of ABC fall within that limit. If, NFP becomes 100% effective, will the Magisterium condemn it because it is 100% effective in separating the ends of conjugal intercourse?

Me: t’s not logically the same thing and it’s a moot point because it never will be 100% effective in separating the two ends. <<

Him: You can’t credibly assert that natural family planning will never be 100% effective. There is in fact one method that claims to be 100% effective - rigorously practiced. And my point is not a moot point even if NFP could never be 100% effective. You have to dodge the issue and claim it is a moot point because it reduces your arguments w.r.t. conjugal morality to an absurdity - reductio ad absurdem.
But, even if NFP is only 98% effective, your posts still condemn it because the purpose and intent of NFP is to “slam the door on life (procreation)” and to allow couples to enjoy the good of sex for purposes other than procreation. It does so 98% of the time.

Now, if you want to argue that your posts do not condemn NFP because it fails and does not “slam the door on life (procreation)” 2% of the time, then since ABC fails to "slam the door on life (procreation) 3% of the time it is likewise not condemned by your posts.

What specifically is faultly about his reasoning in his arguments and what exactly is the best rebuttal to his arguments? Any feedback will greatly be appreciated.

 

[fix]

Hvaing intercourse during non fertile times to avoid conception does not change the act. It is still procreative. It is ordered towards life as willed by our Lord.

 

[BruceK]

**Here’s the latest exchange I’ve had with him on this issue, his words are as follows:**Do you deny that the Church teaches that if a married couple intentionally uses NFP to exclude procreation for the life of their marriage, then their “doing nothing” was immoral? Yes or No.
**So what would be the best reply to this? **

 

[Randy_Carson]

**Here’s the latest exchange I’ve had with him on this issue, his words are as follows:**Do you deny that the Church teaches that if a married couple intentionally uses NFP to exclude procreation for the life of their marriage, then their “doing nothing” was immoral? Yes or No.
**So what would be the best reply to this? **

My answer:

Yes, I deny that the Church teaches that the use of NFP to “exclude procreation” is immoral.

It is not immoral and the Church does not teach that it is.

 

[BruceK]

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

 

[LJN21]

I, admittedly, haven’t read the whole thread, but noted on this page the focus seems to be on the ends side. e.i. Both are used to avoid children so there is no difference between the two. This really has nothing to do with the NFP/contraception debate. Controlling Births isn’t what is against Church teaching. If a couple has just reason to never have children it would be perfectly Moral to use NFP to do so for the whole of their marriage. The reason contraception is immoral is because deliberately frustrates act and most chemical contraceptives also act as an abortificant. Sex must be ordered to procreation, contraception prevents procreation by either blocking conception or preventing implantation of a new life, this is the moral issue not controlling births. NFP does neither, you can not actively block what can not happen.

 

[BruceK]

I thought I share you the latest exchange I having with my protagonist(Sub) 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 **

 

[BobCatholic]

“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.”

Actually, the truth is:

“Enormous numbers of couples and families in the poorest countries in world are condemned to death and suffering because of true Church teachings, but non one outside of the Vatican seems to care.”

 

[IWillBeHeard]

NFP is for those who don’t mind having large families. It’s intention is exactly the same as any other kind of birth control, so one cannot argue it’s better than condoms. I personally support it, with use of another kind of birth control of course. Bringing in babies you cannot feed is one of the worst sins I can think of.

Let me tell you about the new rules on here…

1. If you support any sort of view that is different than what the mods believe, you will be banned. Discussion is not open for different and new ideas. Even if Catholicism is making a mistake, we support tradition.
2. Everything the Catholic Church has ever done has been infallible. Therefore, there is no need for you to question anything about Catholicism, the Church is perfect. If the Church told you to kill someone, you should do it, no questions asked.
3. Any rude and ignorant comments to others stating “You are not a true Catholic if you voted for Obama” will be accepted and is encouraged.
4. God didn’t give you this conscience to use for yourself. You must substitute other peoples judgment for your own, and never question them, because their judgment is better.
5. If you child someday asks you if they should use a condom, you should tell them “No, let yourself get HIV instead.”

 

[BruceK]

Actually, the truth is:

“Enormous numbers of couples and families in the poorest countries in world are condemned to death and suffering because of true Church teachings, but non one outside of the Vatican seems to care.”

??How exactly are “enormous #'s of couples & families in poorest counties (around) the world condemned to death and suffering because” of the what the Church teaches?
Could you please elaborate Bob?

 

[BobCatholic]

??How exactly are “enormous #'s of couples & families in poorest counties (around) the world condemned to death and suffering because” of the what the Church teaches?
Could you please elaborate Bob?

Well, take a look at any place where Islam is the official state religion. Catholics are persecuted there, and condemned to death.

We have them persecuted in the richer countries. Maybe not death, but definitely suffering.

Canada human rights thugs punished Catholics for practicing their faith, fining them, taking their property. Some lost their jobs because of their catholic faith.

In the USA, we have nonsense happening here too. In Illinois, Catholic pharmacists were targeted by an extreme left wing governor for special rule stripping them of their conscience rights. A federal appeals court finally put a stop to that. But in the meantime, many lost their jobs. Remember, if you’re a Catholic pharmacist and adhere to Catholic teaching, the left does not want you to eat.

In many European countries, unless Catholics sign on to the homosexual agenda, they get fined for “hate crimes” and “hate speech” - of course, many lose their jobs.

 

[GodisEverywhere]

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?

Why are you trying to convince someone? It will never work. Change happens from inside, and arguing is just going to push them away further. As far as your content of your argument, I also reject the Humnanae Vitae, like most Catholics.

 

[BruceK]

Well, take a look at any place where Islam is the official state religion. Catholics are persecuted there, and condemned to death.

We have them persecuted in the richer countries. Maybe not death, but definitely suffering.

Canada human rights thugs punished Catholics for practicing their faith, fining them, taking their property. Some lost their jobs because of their catholic faith.

In the USA, we have nonsense happening here too. In Illinois, Catholic pharmacists were targeted by an extreme left wing governor for special rule stripping them of their conscience rights. A federal appeals court finally put a stop to that. But in the meantime, many lost their jobs. Remember, if you’re a Catholic pharmacist and adhere to Catholic teaching, the left does not want you to eat.

In many European countries, unless Catholics sign on to the homosexual agenda, they get fined for “hate crimes” and “hate speech” - of course, many lose their jobs.

Ah yes, now I know what you’re talking about. They are let off easy if they are merely fined or lose their jobs. In some cases it is now come to the point where they are sentanced to jail for defending orthodox Catholic teaching and within the generation, in some places, it will probably come to the point where they are lobotomized, thrown in de facto concentration camps or even put to death by lethal injection. I can see where this will eventually lead.**