Humanae Vitae debate

  • Thread starter Thread starter BruceK
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
GodisEverywhere said:
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.
Click to expand...
That pretty much says it all, need I say more?:rolleyes:
 
**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
 
Here’s the latest from my procontraception protagonsist, apparently he taking *Providentissimus Deus*and St. Augustine’s quote out of context and obviously doesn’t understand HV.

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

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

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

It apears the sophistry is on his part, not mine. Am I right? Help or feedback would be greatly appreciated.
 
BruceK said:
Here’s the latest from my procontraception protagonsist, apparently he taking *Providentissimus Deus*and St. Augustine’s quote out of context and obviously doesn’t understand HV.

It apears the sophistry is on his part, not mine. Am I right? Help or feedback would be greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...
I haven’t read this entire thread, so you may need to excuse me.

I have found this article: ccli.org/nfp/morality/bible.php

and my signature link extremely enlightening when discussing the Catholic teaching about contraception.

These articles show the traditional Catholic teaching and its Jewish roots.

Of course these articles will not change your friend’s mind about contraception, but may help him see that his rationale is not Catholic.
 
BruceK said:
Here’s the latest from my procontraception protagonsist, apparently he taking *Providentissimus Deus*and St. Augustine’s quote out of context and obviously doesn’t understand HV.

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

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

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

It apears the sophistry is on his part, not mine. Am I right? Help or feedback would be greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...
Natural law is based on a certain view of human nature, and one must understand what that view is before one can understand the arguments in HV. Certainly it cannot be reduced to what can be know from the canons of biology and psychology. What ought to be obvious is that we can know everything that these two sciences tell us and not know everything about human sexuality. As far as HV, the principle that each sex act ought to be open to procreation is really an appeal to the sexual partners to remember that ultimately they are under God’s providence, that their relationship to each other cannot be reduced to a set of problems with pat answers that will avoid suffering. At bottom this pragmatism ignores the existence of radical evil in this world. Solve one set of problems and others appear, the unintended consequences of our decisions. NFP is, after all, based on the willingness of each partner to love the other unconditionally amd of sharing that loves with children. The contraceptive mentality, however, is based on the principal of utility, of exciting as much pleasure as possible and minimizing the amount of pain. Children then become incidental to these goals. A planned child is good; an unplanned child is an evil.
 
Haven’t read all the posts .

Noted some vague arguments against natural law being the primary focus in guidelines against contraception.

Having come to recognise more how trust is an element that is so very important in all relationships and esp. with God ( this ,esp. thanks to the Divine mercy motto : "Yeshua , I trust in Thee " ) our lack of trust in ways of God is also indicative of our trust in ideas /agents contradictory to God .

Hence , for those who think natural law alone may not be good enough in this area , may be the focus need to be more on the whole issue of trust .

If evey marital union is there to proclaim trust in God’s ways ( for even with use of NFP - there is that tacit consent and trust ) that trust then can come back to bless the couple in all other areas in many ways .

The aweful irony is that a country that proclaims trust in God has shown trust in a President who is trying to blind the nation to what trust is about !

May The Holy Spirit who enabled our Bl.Mother to trust and thus undo the distrust of our first parents lead us and may Lord have mercy on us all !
 
I was recently having a discussion with a person(he goes by the name Sub) about moral relativism and homosexuality in which he stated:
The question was brought up:
BK>>**Is “morality relative”?? **<<

SUB >> Yes. It is relative to the basis by which one judges morality. <<

There are two aspects to arriving at a moral norm. The first is the funadmantal reality or truth on which a moral norm is based; the second is the soundness of the argument by which one proceeds from an absolute truth to a moral norm (conclusion).

If one assesses the morality of gay marriage from the perspective of Christ’s commandment to love your neighbor as yourself, and the fact that some individuals are born gay and therefore loving someone of the same sex is natural, one could perhaps construct an argument for the morality of gay marriage.

If one assesses the morality of gay marriage from the perspective of the role of marriage and sexual intercourse in the propagation of the species, enlightened by Scriptural prohibition of homosexual intercourse, one can construct an argument against the morality of gay marriage.

To which I (BK) stated:** Ultimately what’s the difference between sterilized heterosexuality and homosexual sex? Nothing – for both disjoin procreation from sexual expression. <**<
Sub replies:
NFP also disjoins (excludes) procreation from sexual expression (see JPII L&R pg 235), with the Vatican’s sanction. If there were something immoral about disjoining procreation from sexual expression, the Vatican would condemn NFP. The difference between “sterilized heterosexuality” and homosexual sex is fundamental to the issue of conjugal morality. God created humans so that sexual intercourse serves two separate ends: procreation and unification. He obviously did not will that the two ends be “inseparably connected”. But both ends are proximate ends to the ultimate end of the sexual urge - the propagation of the human species. (See JPII, L&R pg 51) Both proximate ends derive their morality from the fact that they are both intrinsic elements of the ultimate end. The pursuit of “unification” to the exclusion of “procreation” (e.g. NFP) is justified in so far as it serves the ultimate end of the sexual urge - the propagation of the species. Homosexual sex, however, does not serve the ultimate end of the sexual urge. It is not “ordered to” the ultimate end. It cannot be justified on the basis of God’s will as expressed through His creation of humans. It is immoral because it conflicts with God’s will as best we can know it from the perspective that I have outlined.>
I know there there are at least some flaws to his argument what specificly are they? 🤷
 
Whoever makes that argument has little knowledge of how population growth works: for example, the fertility rate of American declined by nearly half around the beginning of the 19th century- over a century before contraception become popularized.
In the Western world, children are generally seen as a burden on a family, which makes sense given the immense costs associated with raising a child the “right” way, which often includes putting that child through college. As a result, we generally assume that those with large families in poorer nations are “victims” who have had more forced onto their plate than they can handle: but consider this-
I certainly hope that anyone reading this is saving for their retirement: it only makes sense, given that most of us to live beyond the age at which we are able to draw income to provide for ourselves. But what if you lived in as a subsistence farmer? You hardly have enough to provide for yourself as it is, in a nation who’s currency is probably far too unstable to depend upon anyway. So what is your best recourse if you wish to live beyond your working years? Make sure there are a group of younger people willing to provide for you of course!

In short- don’t assume contraception would lower the fertility rate: most of those children are not unwanted.
 
tjm190 said:
Whoever makes that argument has little knowledge of how population growth works: for example, the fertility rate of American declined by nearly half around the beginning of the 19th century- over a century before contraception become popularized.
In the Western world, children are generally seen as a burden on a family, which makes sense given the immense costs associated with raising a child the “right” way, which often includes putting that child through college. As a result, we generally assume that those with large families in poorer nations are “victims” who have had more forced onto their plate than they can handle: but consider this-
I certainly hope that anyone reading this is saving for their retirement: it only makes sense, given that most of us to live beyond the age at which we are able to draw income to provide for ourselves. But what if you lived in as a subsistence farmer? You hardly have enough to provide for yourself as it is, in a nation who’s currency is probably far too unstable to depend upon anyway. So what is your best recourse if you wish to live beyond your working years? Make sure there are a group of younger people willing to provide for you of course!

In short- don’t assume contraception would lower the fertility rate: most of those children are not unwanted.
Click to expand...
?? What argument? Whom are you responding to? :confused: You should click the quote icon if you’re going to respond to a previous post.
 
BruceK said:
I was recently having a discussion with a person(he goes by the name Sub) about moral relativism and homosexuality in which he stated:
The question was brought up:
BK>>**Is “morality relative”?? **<<

SUB >> Yes. It is relative to the basis by which one judges morality. <<

There are two aspects to arriving at a moral norm. The first is the funadmantal reality or truth on which a moral norm is based; the second is the soundness of the argument by which one proceeds from an absolute truth to a moral norm (conclusion).

If one assesses the morality of gay marriage from the perspective of Christ’s commandment to love your neighbor as yourself, and the fact that some individuals are born gay and therefore loving someone of the same sex is natural, one could perhaps construct an argument for the morality of gay marriage.

If one assesses the morality of gay marriage from the perspective of the role of marriage and sexual intercourse in the propagation of the species, enlightened by Scriptural prohibition of homosexual intercourse, one can construct an argument against the morality of gay marriage.

To which I (BK) stated:** Ultimately what’s the difference between sterilized heterosexuality and homosexual sex? Nothing – for both disjoin procreation from sexual expression. <**<
Sub replies:
NFP also disjoins (excludes) procreation from sexual expression (see JPII L&R pg 235), with the Vatican’s sanction. If there were something immoral about disjoining procreation from sexual expression, the Vatican would condemn NFP. The difference between “sterilized heterosexuality” and homosexual sex is fundamental to the issue of conjugal morality. God created humans so that sexual intercourse serves two separate ends: procreation and unification. He obviously did not will that the two ends be “inseparably connected”. But both ends are proximate ends to the ultimate end of the sexual urge - the propagation of the human species. (See JPII, L&R pg 51) Both proximate ends derive their morality from the fact that they are both intrinsic elements of the ultimate end. The pursuit of “unification” to the exclusion of “procreation” (e.g. NFP) is justified in so far as it serves the ultimate end of the sexual urge - the propagation of the species. Homosexual sex, however, does not serve the ultimate end of the sexual urge. It is not “ordered to” the ultimate end. It cannot be justified on the basis of God’s will as expressed through His creation of humans. It is immoral because it conflicts with God’s will as best we can know it from the perspective that I have outlined.>
I know there there are at least some flaws to his argument what specificly are they? 🤷
Click to expand...
Well? Anyone? This cannot possibly have everbody stomped.😦
 
Again, I’ve been having this debate with this protagonist(Sub) who believes that artificial birth control and natural family planning are morally equivalent. This is to the extebt he’s willing to resort to. So I’m looking for help in what would be the best rebuttal to his arguments. My words are in bold:

**Me: So I ask you, in what way does NFP specifically alter the act to render it sterile…?
<<**SUB >> A conjugal act in natural response to the sexual urge will result in a certain frequency of conceptions - it is a potentially procreative act. NFP by intentionally limiting conjugal acts to infertile periods, i.e., by excluding procreation, alters the conjugal act from a potentially procreative act to a non-procreative act.

Me: more to the point: By what unatural means - either artificial or Chemical - does NFP intentionally limits the conjugal act and excludes procreation to a non-procrative act(sterile)? <<

Sub: There are unnatural means, other than chemical or artificial, to limit the conjugal act and exclude procreation. NFP unnaturally limits conjugal intercourse to infertile periods to exclude procreation. A couple who followed their natural inclinations would engage in conjugal intercourse without regard to the fertility cycle. In fact given the increased desire on the part of most women for conjugal intercourse during their fertile period, they woud engage in conjugal intercourse more frequently during that period. So folloowing their natural inclinations, their conjugal intercourse would be potentially procreative. Couples practicing NFP, however, act against their natural inclinations and, unnaturally, limit their conjugal intercourse to infertile periods, thus altering their conjugal intercourse to nonprocreative acts by their unnatural practice. Note that the testimony of married couples branded NFP as more unnatural than any other form of birth control.
 
**This deals directly with Humanae Vitae. My antagonist whom I’ve been having this ongoing debate with states that HV is self-contradictory. He base this on paragraphs 11 and 12; his premise is as follows: **
Hv11 says that each and every conjugal act must be open to procreation.
But, God created human sexuality so that each and every conjugal act is not open to procreation.
Therefore HV11 contradicts God’s will a revealed through His creation of human sexuality. HV11 rejects God’s will so known.

HV12 states that the “inseparable connection” between the two ends of conjugal intercourse is God’s will.

But God crerated human sexuality so that the two ends of conjugal intercourse are not “inseparately connected”; God separated the two ends of conjugal intercourse when he created human sexuality.

Therefore, HV12’s claim that the “inseparable connection” is God’s will is false. It is a rejection of God’s will as revealed through His creation of Human sexuality

**So I ask you what specifically is faulty with his reasoning, logic and his reading of HV? **
 
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...
Condoms might be a discreet way of trying to sterilise the poor, not tackle HIV. I don’t think condoms are the worst birth control around, as there is also abortion in the Third World and other contraceptive drugs. However, I wouldn’t spread my muck. There’s also economic interest in contraception. Durex are a London company and the contraceptive pill is from the US. NFP has no economic vested interest.
 
budgie2 said:
Condoms might be a discreet way of trying to sterilise the poor, not tackle HIV. I don’t think condoms are the worst birth control around, as there is also abortion in the Third World and other contraceptive drugs. However, I wouldn’t spread my muck. There’s also economic interest in contraception. Durex are a London company and the contraceptive pill is from the US. NFP has no economic vested interest.
Click to expand...
Why are you replying to something I posted several years back rather than rplying to my most recent question?
:confused:
 
BruceK said:
This deals directly with Humanae Vitae. My antagonist whom I’ve been having this ongoing debate with states that HV is self-contradictory. He base this on paragraphs 11 and 12; his premise is as follows:
Hv11 says that each and every conjugal act must be open to procreation.
But, God created human sexuality so that each and every conjugal act is not open to procreation.
Therefore HV11 contradicts God’s will a revealed through His creation of human sexuality. HV11 rejects God’s will so known.

HV12 states that the “inseparable connection” between the two ends of conjugal intercourse is God’s will.

But God crerated human sexuality so that the two ends of conjugal intercourse are not “inseparately connected”; God separated the two ends of conjugal intercourse when he created human sexuality.

Therefore, HV12’s claim that the “inseparable connection” is God’s will is false. It is a rejection of God’s will as revealed through His creation of Human sexuality

**So I ask you what specifically is faulty with his reasoning, logic and his reading of HV? **
Click to expand...
 
Here’s the latest exchange I’ve been having with this supporter of contraception and his moral justification of such. My words are in bold:
Me: ]how is it possibly moral to thwart the transmission of life by artificial gadgets, surgical alteration, or the pill? <<

My Protagonist: <It is moral to artificially thwart the transmission of life because doing so violates no moral principle. ABC like NFP cooperates with God’s will as revealed through His creation of human sexuality.>

**What is flawed about his argument and what would be the best rebuttal of such? **
 
Once you begin to understand and embrace the Church’s teachings you will see how it strengthens marriage. The divorce rate is actually higher in contracepting couples than for those using NFP.

Up until the 1930’s, all Christians taught that ABC was intrinsically evil. Since that time, all Protestant denomination have caved in on this issue; only the Catholic Church has remained steadfast.

The Church’s teachings look bizarre when contrasted to the modern world, but it is the modern world’s view of sex combined with its emphasis on materialism that is distorted. Today, most people view sex as a recreational sport when it is actually something sacred.

You say the Church’s teachings hurt marriage, but actually contraception hurts marriage and the Pill is poisoning women and the enviroment.

In HV Pope Paul VI proved to be a prophet when he predicted the
widespread use of contraception could lead to the end of the human race.

Of course he didn’t know about sugar also ending our race by stopping gene expresion.

John Buttrey
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top