Humanae Vitae Debate

[BruceK]

This is an ongoing debate I am with the dissident Catholic who rejects Humanae Vitae and Natural Family Planning (NFP). He believe HV is inheritly self-contradictory. My antagonist says this about HV and NFP;

“The problem is that HV11 insists that ‘Each and every marital act must remain open to the transmission of life’. But, NFP (the non-artificial method) closes the marital act to the transmission of life, and so is prohibited by HV11. If NFP did not close the conjugal act to the transmission of life, it could not control births.
HV’s prohibition of ABC has been rejected by the sensus fidelium and will join other doctrines taught for centuries that were reversed, e.g., slavery, usury, freedom of religion, etc…
HV16 says: ‘It is true that in both cases [ABC and NFP] the husband and wife agree in positively willing to avoid children for acceptable reasons, seeking to be certain that offspring will not result…’
NFP requires taking deliberate steps in anticipation of (before) a marital act to exclude procreation from any marital acts. HV14 contradicts its sanction of NFP. In Casti Connubii, Pius XI stated that there was no objection to those who engaged in the marital act at times when conception was thought impossible. He did not, however, address use of the marital act solely at times when conception was thought impossible in a systematic attempt to avoid conception… …
HV says that it’s ‘inseparable connection’ is the fundamental principle on which its “open” edict is based. Quoting all the rest of HV can not alter the fact that God in His act of creation separated the two functions of conjugal intercourse. (CCC1147: God speaks to man throiugh the visable creation.) HV’s “inseparable connection”, the basis of its “open” edict, is false. And not only is it false, but since we know from God’s act of creation that he willed it otherwise, HV’s assertion that the ‘inseparable connection’ is a rejection of God’s will.’ Quoting all of HV cannot alter the fact that HV’s “open” edict in HV11 condemns NFP and contradicts HV’s sanction of NFP. If NFP were not closed ot the transmission of life, it could not prevent the transmission of life. One can also quote HV13 and HV14, both of which contradict HV’s sanction of NFP.”

I’ll grant him this, he is slick. Any apologist here have any comments or rebuttal to this dissident catholic’s thesis?

 

[Newbie2]

NFP requires taking deliberate steps in anticipation of (before) a marital act to exclude procreation from any marital acts.

I’ll grant him this, he is slick. Any apologist here have any comments or rebuttal to this dissident catholic’s thesis?

The argument is faulty in that:

1. The spouses and the act itself are still left wide open to procreation. They are not taking any action that is directly contraceptive.
2. The argument seems to back into the conclusion that all marital acts are to be procreative.
3. NFP does not manipulate the human reproductive cycle; marital acts are not forbidden during infertile times. The cycle was “designed” that way for a reason, no doubt. 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.

 

[mercygate]

1. Sensus fidelium refers to the faithful, not to the dissident.
2. NFP does have a “problem” in that permission for its use assumes grave reasons for avoiding pregnancy. However, NFP is frequently “sold” as if it were contraception. It was never intended to be the ordinary way of life for Catholics. Before the oestrous cycle was fully understood, couples who NEEDED to avoid a pregnancy had no other option than abstinence.
3. There is a material difference between CONTRA-cepting and not engaging in the marital act.
4. Using NFP you work WITH the God-given plan of fertility-infertility, not AGAINST it by placing an artificial barrier or by chemically altering the natural oestrous cycle.
5. With NFP the natural human act of intercourse itself is not thwarted or distorted as it is with contraception.

 

[Delphinus85]

This is an ongoing debate I am with the dissident Catholic who rejects Humanae Vitae and Natural Family Planning (NFP). He believe HV is inheritly self-contradictory. My antagonist says this about HV and NFP;

“The problem is that HV11 insists that ‘Each and every marital act must remain open to the transmission of life’. But, NFP (the non-artificial method) closes the marital act to the transmission of life, and so is prohibited by HV11. If NFP did not close the conjugal act to the transmission of life, it could not control births.
HV’s prohibition of ABC has been rejected by the sensus fidelium and will join other doctrines taught for centuries that were reversed, e.g., slavery, usury, freedom of religion, etc…
HV16 says: ‘It is true that in both cases [ABC and NFP] the husband and wife agree in positively willing to avoid children for acceptable reasons, seeking to be certain that offspring will not result…’
NFP requires taking deliberate steps in anticipation of (before) a marital act to exclude procreation from any marital acts. HV14 contradicts its sanction of NFP. In Casti Connubii, Pius XI stated that there was no objection to those who engaged in the marital act at times when conception was thought impossible. He did not, however, address use of the marital act solely at times when conception was thought impossible in a systematic attempt to avoid conception… …
HV says that it’s ‘inseparable connection’ is the fundamental principle on which its “open” edict is based. Quoting all the rest of HV can not alter the fact that God in His act of creation separated the two functions of conjugal intercourse. (CCC1147: God speaks to man throiugh the visable creation.) HV’s “inseparable connection”, the basis of its “open” edict, is false. And not only is it false, but since we know from God’s act of creation that he willed it otherwise, HV’s assertion that the ‘inseparable connection’ is a rejection of God’s will.’ Quoting all of HV cannot alter the fact that HV’s “open” edict in HV11 condemns NFP and contradicts HV’s sanction of NFP. If NFP were not closed ot the transmission of life, it could not prevent the transmission of life. One can also quote HV13 and HV14, both of which contradict HV’s sanction of NFP.”

I’ll grant him this, he is slick. Any apologist here have any comments or rebuttal to this dissident catholic’s thesis?

I’m sorry to say this, but a lot of catholics would agree witht his one. Me being one. NFP is just as purposefully contraceptive as artificial means, especially since it’s biggest proponents say it is as effective at preventing pregnancy as ABC. I follow what the church says, but I disagree. Either NFO needs to go, or other forms of contraception need to be allowed. Just because a couple uses NFP doesn’t make them “more open to life”. I know several couples using ABC or several kinds that love kids, want kids, but have very serious reasons for waiting (money, health, etc). I’m actually not gunna subscribe to this thread as I don’t want ot argue this, or have to deal with the flames that will undoubtedly follow. I am saying this just so you know a LOT of lay catholics, I’d say MOST in the US at least seriously question the logic of Humane Vitae. And seeing as how it’s not an infallible statement, people are free to disagree, as long as they aren’t in open rebellion. Like me and many others, we disagree, but we will follow the morals preached until this is looked at again.

 

[TMC]

I’m sorry, but I think your friend has many good points. The only way to make HV hang together internally is to twist around the meaning of procreative and contraceptive until they become self-fulfilling conclusions. As for external consistency, I am not that familiar with his creation-based argument, but I would agree that the ‘inseperable connection’ argument is not consistent with Catholic teaching in any other area of creation and human endeavor. Also, the sensus fidelium is a strong argument. I do not agree with the comment that it is the sense of the “faithful”. That is a meaningless and circular statement. If laity is right, they are the faithful. To say it only applies to things that people agree with the Church on defines it out of existence. Besides, its not just lay people, I would wager that most priests disagree with HV. Certainly there was plenty of dissent when it came out. My sense is that there is more support in the clergy, certainly among bishops, for HV today because it has become such a point of emphasis. Still, more than a bare majority would surprise me.

I’m sure you’ll get some excellent ideas for arguments from others here, but frankly I think your opponent has the better side.

 

[Newbie2]

I’m sorry to say this, but a lot of catholics would agree witht his one. Me being one. NFP is just as purposefully contraceptive as artificial means, especially since it’s biggest proponents say it is as effective at preventing pregnancy as ABC. I follow what the church says, but I disagree. Either NFO needs to go, or other forms of contraception need to be allowed. Just because a couple uses NFP doesn’t make them “more open to life”. I know several couples using ABC or several kinds that love kids, want kids, but have very serious reasons for waiting (money, health, etc). I’m actually not gunna subscribe to this thread as I don’t want ot argue this, or have to deal with the flames that will undoubtedly follow. I am saying this just so you know a LOT of lay catholics, I’d say MOST in the US at least seriously question the logic of Humane Vitae. And seeing as how it’s not an infallible statement, people are free to disagree, as long as they aren’t in open rebellion. Like me and many others, we disagree, but we will follow the morals preached until this is looked at again.

Question: What is the contraceptive act in a marital act with a couple using NFP?

Answer: None

Question: What is contraceptive act in a marital act with a couple using any form of contraception?

Answer: Any use of artificial contraception is contraception.

Question: Then what’s the difference? The intent is the same i.e. not to have children resulting from that particular act.

Answer: Yes, the intent is the same. The actions are different. Therin lies the difference.

Question: So is there a difference between a couple who practices NFP with a regular, predictable cycle and a couple who blindly takes a chance, not using NFP per se, and just hopes not to have a pregnancy and a couple who wants to use NFP, but either doesn’t understand the principles and practices well enough to make it effective or perhaps the woman has irregular and unpredictable cycles?

If so, what are the differences?

Answer: You answer this one.

 

[mercygate]

Question: So is there a difference between a couple who practices NFP with a regular, predictable cycle and a couple who blindly takes a chance, not using NFP per se, and just hopes not to have a pregnancy and a couple who wants to use NFP, but either doesn’t understand the principles and practices well enough to make it effective or perhaps the woman has irregular and unpredictable cycles?

If so, what are the differences?

I don’t understand the question. Can you unpack it a little?

 

[TMC]

Question: What is the contraceptive act in a marital act with a couple using NFP?

Answer: None

I would say that the contraceptive act is the careful planning of the marital act to ensure that no conception can occur. There is little that is “natural” about natural family planning, and nothing that is procreative. On the contrary it is a carefully and scientifically designed system to avoid procreating.

Question: What is contraceptive act in a marital act with a couple using any form of contraception?

Answer: Any use of artificial contraception is contraception.

Question: Then what’s the difference? The intent is the same i.e. not to have children resulting from that particular act.

Answer: Yes, the intent is the same. The actions are different. Therin lies the difference.

Here is where the reasoning takes a turn towards the ridiculous. There are two problems with this conclusion.

1. This is the only area in which I am aware that the Church says that the intention is irrelevant and only the form of the action matters. (There are some very narrow areas in which intent and form both matter, I believe, but none in which form trumps intent.) A contra example - I am hunting with friends and shoot at what I think is a bear, but turns out to be my crazy brother trying to scare me in a bear suit. Murder? No. I am hunting with friends and see my crazy brother running up in a bear suit. I shoot him knowing everyone will think its a mistake. Murder? Of course. I’m sure there are better examples, but the point is that intent is what matters in the morality of almost every action, except for sex. Only then does the Church say it is the form of the act that matters.
2. The NFP/ABC distinction is defended on the basis that one is contraception and the other is not. Even if you redefine contraception to exclude systems and only include devices and medications, the problem is that the prohibition on contraception, however it is defined, is based on the requirement that the unitive and procreative aspects of the act be inseperable.

The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. HV 11

This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, **which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance **which are both inherent to the marriage act. HV 12.

NFP adherents love to say that NFP is more effective in preventing pregnancy than condoms and at least as effective as the pill. How then does the act “retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life”? And if people on the pill are about as likely to have children as people using NFP, why is that not equally related to procreation?

The Church requires that the act culminate in the birth canal using a medieval understanding of reproduction to presume that the act of planting the seed is the key to reproduction. But the Church still does not allow the pill, which allows the “seed planting” because it changes the body’s chemistry to avoid ovulation. But lactational amenorrhea, which does the very same thing, is OK. None of this makes sense.

Don’t get me wrong - there is nothing wrong with NFP. But the ABC ban is based on several bad assumptions. The worst is that the two aspects of the marital act must be inseparable in each and every act. The most clearly wrong is the idea that how the act is performed is what makes it “open to procreation.” Together they introduce an anomalous teaching that strips intent from morality in this area, and only this area.

 

[BruceK]

I’m sorry to say this, but a lot of catholics would agree witht his one. Me being one. NFP is just as purposefully contraceptive as artificial means, especially since it’s biggest proponents say it is as effective at preventing pregnancy as ABC. I follow what the church says, but I disagree. Either NFO needs to go, or other forms of contraception need to be allowed. Just because a couple uses NFP doesn’t make them “more open to life”. I know several couples using ABC or several kinds that love kids, want kids, but have very serious reasons for waiting (money, health, etc). I’m actually not gunna subscribe to this thread as I don’t want ot argue this, or have to deal with the flames that will undoubtedly follow. Why the cop out?
I am saying this just so you know a LOT of lay catholics, I’d say MOST in the US at least seriously question the logic of Humane Vitae. And seeing as how it’s not an infallible statement, people are free to disagree, as long as they aren’t in open rebellion. **It’s not an infallible in the *Ex Cathedra ***sense but it never-the-less is an infallible teaching, see Lumen Gentium, 25 Like me and many others, we disagree, but we will follow the morals preached until this is looked at again.

Then what do you say to the fact that virtually all christians(as well as Jews) were against contraception up to the early 20th century? I think that should tell you something right there. Whether 99% of Catholics disagree with it still doesn’t mean that 99% are right and the Magisterium is wrong.

 

[BruceK]

I’m sorry, but I think your friend has many good points. The only way to make HV hang together internally is to twist around the meaning of procreative and contraceptive until they become self-fulfilling conclusions. As for external consistency, I am not that familiar with his creation-based argument, but I would agree that the ‘inseperable connection’ argument is not consistent with Catholic teaching in any other area of creation and human endeavor. Also, the sensus fidelium is a strong argument. I do not agree with the comment that it is the sense of the “faithful”. That is a meaningless and circular statement. If laity is right, they are the faithful. To say it only applies to things that people agree with the Church on defines it out of existence. Besides, its not just lay people, I would wager that most priests disagree with HV. Certainly there was plenty of dissent when it came out. My sense is that there is more support in the clergy, certainly among bishops, for HV today because it has become such a point of emphasis. Still, more than a bare majority would surprise me.

I’m sure you’ll get some excellent ideas for arguments from others here, but frankly I think your opponent has the better side.

**Knowing where he’s coming from and what his agenda is, I doubt it. But let me ask you this, do believe that Pope Paul VI was either grossly incompetent or was exercising intellectual dishonesty of the worst kind when he drafted Humanae Vitae? **

 

[theology_geek]

1. This is the only area in which I am aware that the Church says that the intention is irrelevant and only the form of the action matters.

Here is where you are mistaken. The Church does not say that intention does not matter in this case either. It warns that one cannot use NFP with a contraceptive mentality, but rather the intent should be to postpone conception, for serious reason, until a later time.

Further, the couple who is trying to postpone conception using NFP must remain open to any life that may still be conceived while using NFP.

To really understand the drastic difference (and it is drastic) between NFP and ABC you need to understand the Natural Law.
To simplify this for our discussion here, one of the first tenants of natural law is to work in accord with human nature and not against it. NFP works with the woman’s God-given cycle to help a couple regulate births. Contraception works against it (sometimes with great health risks and in ways ways that can be abortive) by blocking the natural act, tricking the woman’s body to think it is pregnant…

I find it ironic that there is a growing movement among non-Catholics who are coming to understand this while so many Catholics rejest it. I also find it ironic that otherwise faithful Catholics who do not see a difference between ABC and NFP will use this as a way to advocate for the use of ABC rather than for the immorality of both.

This topic has rocked the Church more than most realize. **I really recommend everyone read a book by Ralph McInerny called “What Went Wrong With Vatican II”. **It is fairly short and very eye opening.

Theology Geek

 

[TMC]

Knowing where he’s coming from and what his agenda is, I doubt it. But let me ask you this, do believe that Pope Paul VI was either grossly incompetent or was exercising intellectual dishonesty of the worst kind when he drafted Humanae Vitae

I don’t know. Why do any Church leaders make mistakes? I think he meant well. How he came to disagree with his own commission, and the majority of the clergy and the theologians, is a question only he could answer.

 

[TMC]

Here is where you are mistaken. The Church does not say that intention does not matter in this case either. It warns that one cannot use NFP with a contraceptive mentality, but rather the intent should be to postpone conception, for serious reason, until a later time.

Further, the couple who is trying to postpone conception using NFP must remain open to any life that may still be conceived while using NFP.

To really understand the drastic difference (and it is drastic) between NFP and ABC you need to understand the Natural Law.
To simplify this for our discussion here, one of the first tenants of natural law is to work in accord with human nature and not against it. NFP works with the woman’s God-given cycle to help a couple regulate births. Contraception works against it (sometimes with great health risks and in ways ways that can be abortive) by blocking the natural act, tricking the woman’s body to think it is pregnant…

I find it ironic that there is a growing movement among non-Catholics who are coming to understand this while so many Catholics rejest it. I also find it ironic that otherwise faithful Catholics who do not see a difference between ABC and NFP will use this as a way to advocate for the use of ABC rather than for the immorality of both.

This topic has rocked the Church more than most realize. **I really recommend everyone read a book by Ralph McInerny called “What Went Wrong With Vatican II”. **It is fairly short and very eye opening.

Theology Geek

Why do you think most people use ABC? And people who use ABC can be just as open to life conceived while using it, and generally are, as people using NFP. There is no intention based difference between the two. Absolutely none.

This idea that NFP is more “natural” because it does not involve taking a pill makes absolutely no sense. All contraception is based on using the body’s reproductive design. Evading conception by a complex system rather than a chemical or a barrier is no more or less “natural”. Each is an application of our understanding of reproduction in an attempt to avoid it.

Even if that were not true, or you were inclined to simply reject NFP instead of accepting ABC, there is no other area of Catholic teaching that preaches this so-called “natural law” limitation on the use of our bodies. Its OK to have my eybrows lifted, my eyes lasered, and butt check implants, but taking the pill is an affront to God’s design? Please.

 

[Chancellare]

Those who disagree with Humanae Vitae by simply equating NFP and ABC:

Abstaining is not equal to contraception.
In the same way as fasting is not equal to suicide.

Please disprove the above.

 

[BruceK]

I don’t know. Why do any Church leaders make mistakes? I think he meant well. How he came to disagree with his own commission, and the majority of the clergy and the theologians, is a question only he could answer.

But if what you say is true in regard to HV then there’s only two possiblilities: Paul VI was either disingenous or incompetent. I personally believe he was neither, I think it took a lot of courage on his part to ‘buck the trend.’ Who is to say the majority of those on the Commission were right? The Catholic Church and the Zeitgiest is best summed as thus, ‘never shall the twian meet’ As well as it should be. Why should the Church conform to the ways of world? The Church teaches what is true; it is the modern world’s view of sex that is disordered and is causing all the problems.

 

[mercygate]

But if what you say is true in regard to HV then there’s only two possiblilities: Paul VI was either disingenous or incompetent. I personally believe he was neither, I think it took a lot of courage on his part to ‘buck the trend.’ Who is to say the majority of those on the Commission were right? The Catholic Church and the Zeitgiest is best summed as thus, ‘never shall the twian meet’ As well as it should be. Why should the Church conform to the ways of world? The Church teaches what is true; it is the modern world’s view of sex that is disordered and is causing all the problems.

A point that always needs to be emphasized when discussing Humanae vitae is that NFP can be used with sinful intent. It is not intended as a lifetime program for avoiding children.

I know it sounds off-the-wall to say it these days, but at one time (and I KNOW couples who have done this) when it was NECESSARY for a woman to avoid pregnancy because it would be life-threatening, the couple abstained completely from marital relations for the duration.

 

[OriginalJS]

** But let me ask you this, do believe that Pope Paul VI was either grossly incompetent or was exercising intellectual dishonesty of the worst kind when he drafted Humanae Vitae**?

This is a loaded question that suggests unacceptable alternatives. He was neither intellectually dishonest nor was he grossly incompetent. However, in retrospect, Pope Paul VI and his advisors misjudged the attitudes of millions of Catholics and the church suffered a tremendous backlash. He had told many Catholics what they did not want to hear. Paul VI was stunned by the repercussions and I don’t think he issued any more encyclicals during his reign.

Since the publication of Humane Vitae the use of ABC by Catholics has not abated but seems to have become more widespread.

Whether these results might have been avoided by a more nuanced approach is an open question.

 

[TMC]

But if what you say is true in regard to HV then there’s only two possiblilities: Paul VI was either disingenous or incompetent. I personally believe he was neither, I think it took a lot of courage on his part to ‘buck the trend.’ Who is to say the majority of those on the Commission were right? The Catholic Church and the Zeitgiest is best summed as thus, ‘never shall the twian meet’ As well as it should be. Why should the Church conform to the ways of world? The Church teaches what is true; it is the modern world’s view of sex that is disordered and is causing all the problems.

Maybe. Obviously I disagree. I have read that both the commission and the council expected Paul to re-emphasize the requirement for marriages to be open to offspring (but not necessarily that each act must be) and to actually endorse the pill, because the pill allows completion in the ‘proper’ manner just as NFP does. HV was a surprise, and failed (and still fails) to really explain how some forms of birth regulation are wrong when other forms that have the same intent, same effect, and use the same act are acceptable.

The problem was not just that HV didn’t come out the way the council and committee expected. The problem was that it did not make sense either biologically or theologically. The faithful didn’t just not like it, they believed it was clearly wrong. It hurt the credibilty of the Church on moral matters not just because it went against what people wanted, but because it doesn’t make sense.

I have promised myself in the past that I wouldn’t get involved in HV threads because this is one issue that annoys me and sometimes leads me to uncharitable comments. I really think that HV hurt the church. It bothers me.

 

[thseng]

The faithful didn’t just not like it, they believed it was clearly wrong. It hurt the credibilty of the Church on moral matters not just because it went against what people wanted, but because it doesn’t make sense.

“Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’” (John 6:60)

“After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him” (John 6:66)

“Wait, wait, come back! I didn’t realize eating my body and drinking my blood would be so unpopular - I take it back.” (John nothing:nothing-never)

 

[fix]

"The problem is that HV11 insists that ‘Each and every marital act must remain open to the transmission of life’. But, NFP (the non-artificial method) closes the marital act to the transmission of life, and so is prohibited by HV11. If NFP did not close the conjugal act to the transmission of life, it could not control births.

HV talks about recourse to non fertile periods. It actually states clearly how NFP and contracpetion are different morally.

As usual we find people think open to life means exclusively likelihood of conception

HV’s prohibition of ABC has been rejected by the sensus fidelium and will join other doctrines taught for centuries that were reversed, e.g., slavery, usury, freedom of religion, etc…

Sensus fidelium would not contradict the magisterium. None of the examples he gives have been reversed. Ask for citations.

NFP requires taking deliberate steps in anticipation of (before) a marital act to exclude procreation from any marital acts.

The act, with NFP, is not altered in anyway. Nothing is done to impede the act.

HV14 contradicts its sanction of NFP. In Casti Connubii, Pius XI stated that there was no objection to those who engaged in the marital act at times when conception was thought impossible. He did not, however, address use of the marital act solely at times when conception was thought impossible in a systematic attempt to avoid conception… …

What?

HV’s “inseparable connection”, the basis of its “open” edict, is false. And not only is it false, but since we know from God’s act of creation that he willed it otherwise, HV’s assertion that the ‘inseparable connection’ is a rejection of God’s will.’ Quoting all of HV cannot alter the fact that HV’s “open” edict in HV11 condemns NFP and contradicts HV’s sanction of NFP. If NFP were not closed ot the transmission of life, it could not prevent the transmission of life. One can also quote HV13 and HV14, both of which contradict HV’s sanction of NFP."

??

Perhaps you can express this more clearly?