Humanae Vitae debate

[edwest2]

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.

Tell your friend that the AIDS Epidemic is not like the common cold. It is not passed through the air or through contaminated water, it requires an exchange of bodily fluids.

This Harvard researcher agrees with the Pope regarding condoms in Africa.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/harvard_researcher_agrees_with_pope_on_condoms_in_africa/

Your friend should know that having sex is an individual choice. They, not the Pope or the State, choose to take a risk.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

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

Here is one counterargument:

catholicnewsagency.com/news/harvard_researcher_agrees_with_pope_on_condoms_in_africa/

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

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.

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. 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.

This article puts it in perspective:

catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html

I was there for the Sexual Revolution. It was about sex, not love, which is why you see actors on TV portraying people who have ‘just sex,’ like going to the bathroom to relieve themselves. Love is first in priority, not sexual encounters like two dogs in an alley.

1960 The Pill is approved by the FDA.

1967 Because most of the population of the United States still lives on farms, The Pill only now is coming into widespread use.

1968 A coordinated attack on the Church by those inside and outside. Humanae Vitae is published. But you can’t have Catholic women deciding not to use The Pill. That would cut into sales. What to do? Launch the Sexual Revolution.

Send in the Hippies who are against marriage and all forms of authority. Smoke dope.

1970s Adult bookstores selling graphic images of prostitutes open everywhere. Purpose. To get those Catholic men interested in alternative lifestyles.
Swinger magazines filled with ads from people looking to have sex outside of marriage.
Legalize abortion. You can kill your baby if you want to.
The National Organization for Women declares all men are the eternal enemy. Women become the Victim Class in Marxist sytyle class warfare.
Healing? Understanding? Forgiveness? No.
Strip clubs and topless bars open. Is NOW complaining? No. Christians are.

1980s Porn on cable. And something you would never have seen on TV just a few years prior - Sue Ellen driving while drinking liquor straight out of the bottle on Dallas. TV becomes more and more dysfunctional.

No-Fault Divorce completes its sweep of the country. I open the paper and see ads like this: “No kids? $75 and you’re out. Call 800-DIVORCE.”

1990s Into the abyss. Rap. Shock jocks. Perverted radio talk. And then the internet.

Peace,
Ed

 

[BruceK]

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:
how is it possibly moral to thwart the transmission of life by artificial gadgets, surgical alteration, or the pill? <<
My Antagonist: <It is moral to artificially thwart the transmission of life because doing so violates no moral principle. artificial birth contol (ABC) like Natural Family Planning(NFP) cooperates with God’s will as revealed through His creation of human sexuality.>

Ok, but why stop there? Why not legalise abortions under certain circumstances? Some mainline protestant denominations have already done that, and most birth control pills are abortifacient in of themselves. So where do you draw that clear line? <<

He replies: You draw the line between those actions which are evil and those which are not: between killing an unborn fetus (evil) and artificial birth control which is not.

What is specifically flawed about his argument and what would be the best rebuttal of such?