Humanae Vitae Debate

[IvanKaramozov]

**Even there I would have to take issue with that. The fact is that the condemnation of artificial birth control(ABC) was universally held by all christian sects and denominations until the early 20th century. Granted that this was not declared Ex Cathedra by the Catholic Church it is considered to be an infallible teaching. ****

I’m not arguing for BC, I’m arguing that if we are going to condemn it, allowing NFP is non-sensical.

How is ABC defined as a mortal sin infalible though?

I understand why condomes would be immoral, but I don’t get why the Pill is.

 

[BruceK]

Well, if you are going to lecture on the importance for truth, I think you should mentioned that, as far as I remember, Hahn says him and his wife also came to reject NFP.
I don’t recall the Hahn’s ever rejecting since NFP since their conversion to Catholicism, if you have something to back up such claim then, by all means, present it.
I have asked again and again for people, all of whome have supported the distinction between ABC and NFP to explain the difference, and to be honest I have yet to hear one response that makes sense.

Now perhapse that is because I am just a tenager, however I first asked when I was 15 and three years latter of studying logic, philosophy the answers still make absolutly no more sense.

While this is not a good argument, perhapse consider this, a great phycist once said that if you can’t explain a theory to any given fellow you meet in a pub, it’s probably not worth a damn. Have you ever try to explain the Holy Trinity to someone in a pub?
I think that applies here, no simple or comprehensiable difference between taking the pill and carefully regulating the cycle can be given in relation to the intention of the acts, all explination are long, derived, utterly unintuitional, and usually just sill.

**I understand exactly where you’re coming from, I couldn’t see the rationale behind it either when I was at the age. But as I got older and got married and did more study and research into it I started to see it in a different light, and it started to make a bit more sense… I think with a bit more patience and a open mind it will eventually come to you as well. **

 

[IvanKaramozov]

**I understand exactly where you’re coming from, I couldn’t see the rationale behind it either when I was at the age. But as I got older and got married and did more study and research into it I started to see it in a different light, and it started to make a bit more sense… I think with a bit more patience and a open mind it will eventually come to you as well. **

It’s in “Rome Sweet Home”

No, I’m not old engough to drink here, and the only pubs I’ve been in people didn’t speak English. The difference is that there is nothing inherently non-sensical or contradictory about the trinity, looking at this tread it seemes that neither most teens nor most fully matured adults can seen any sense

Perhapse, I doubt.

 

[BruceK]

It’s in “Rome Sweet Home”
**I’ll have to read that book again to see what you’re talking about, but I know for fact that Scott Hahn is a staunch supporter of NFP and saying such well after “:Rome Sweet Rome” was published. **
No, I’m not old engough to drink here, and the only pubs I’ve been in people didn’t speak English. The difference is that there is nothing inherently non-sensical or contradictory about the trinity, looking at this tread it seemes that neither most teens nor most fully matured adults can seen any sense

Perhapse, I doubt.

"can seen any sense"? now that doesn’t really make any sense, perhapsyou might want to rephrase that. You say the Trinity is not inherently non-sensical or contradictory, explain why you think that is so.

 

[mercygate]

Well, if you are going to lecture on the importance for truth, I think you should mentioned that, as far as I remember, Hahn says him and his wife also came to reject NFP.

I have asked again and again for people, all of whome have supported the distinction between ABC and NFP to explain the difference, and to be honest I have yet to hear one response that makes sense.

Now perhapse that is because I am just a tenager, however I first asked when I was 15 and three years latter of studying logic, philosophy the answers still make absolutly no more sense.

While this is not a good argument, perhapse consider this, a great phycist once said that if you can’t explain a theory to any given fellow you meet in a pub, it’s probably not worth a damn. I think that applies here, no simple or comprehensiable difference between taking the pill and carefully regulating the cycle can be given in relation to the intention of the acts, all explination are long, derived, utterly unintuitional, and usually just sill.

The Hahn’s “rejected” NFP in favor of complete providentialism – i.e., they did NOTHING at all to regulate the size of their family.

 

[mercygate]

the paralle is apt in that both are difficult to accecpt, the circumstances are quite different, one being infalible, the other not.

You are aware, Ivan, are you not, that NO Christian body, no Church or denomination approved contraception before the year 1930?

The Catholic Church alone has stood by this constant teaching of the Church and of all post-Reformation Christian denominations. This teaching, as a perennial teaching of the universal Church, comes under the heading of the “ordinary magisterium”. Thus, the teaching is infallible. It is not the document, Humanae vitae, that is infallible, but the teaching it upholds.

 

[mercygate]

That difference seems utterly frivolous, “pulling out” does not use artificial or fake means either.

The end of the two is (ideally) the same, the intention is the same, the only difference is the means, and that distinction is slight.

*Coitus interruptus *is NOT an acceptable means for regulation of births. It is a disruption of the natural human acto of intercourse.

So a couple taking the pill can’t still respect fertility? I don’t understand how manipulating chemicals and manipulating the cycle is substantively different .The couple using NFP is NOT manipulating the cycle. They are operating within the natural cycle of fertility and infertility.

I don’t see how NFP treats the cycle any differently than ABC.

It follows the cycle. It does not change it, distort it, or thwart it.

I think the whole absolute ban on ABC is misguided, but if we must be so extreme let’s at least be consistent.

The teaching is consistent. The rocky shoals lie in the fact that NFP CAN be used with sinful intent. NFP would then carry the same moral weight as ABC. In the “good old days” – before the estrous cycle was fully understood – a couple that needed to avoid pregnancy for serious psychological, financial, or health reasons, would have to abstain completely. And many did. I know people who lived in marital continence for years.

It seems like the argument essentially comes down to, “NFP and ABC are distinctly different because they clearly are”

Well, they ARE different. “Clearly” – perhaps not “clearly” to someone who just operates out of the pervasive cultural climate.

 

[VARC]

I agree that the distinction between NFP and ABC isn’t very convincing. NFP is a form of contraception according to my wife’s OBGYN. It is true that no ecclesiastical bodies approved ABC before 1930 but I doubt that so called “natural” methods of contraception were endorsed either. The traditional Christian view has always been providentialism.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I have not read through this whole thread yet, but here is how I understand it:

1. The Church clearly teaches that deliberately frustrating the act from its natural powers is intrinsically evil. This means Onanism (Gen 38:9) and anything similar. Intrinsically evil means it is wrong at all times.
2. Having relations during infertile times is NOT intrinsically evil, thus the intention determines whether it is a sin or not. Couples who cannot have children or who are past child bearing years are not sinning when they engage because what they are doing is not intrinsically evil. Once you recognize that it is not intrinsically evil means the Church has the authority to set the parameters/clarifications.
3. The Church teaches the conditions for when it is and is not a sin. It teaches that the primary obligation (procreation) can be postponed when certain criteria are met. Here is what Pius XII said:Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life.
   
   Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to tile full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.
   (Address to Midwives, 1951)
4. If you disagree with NFP properly understood then at the very least you must logically become sedevacantist and believe Pius XII fell into heresy. The main problem with that is that it is quite a presumptuous attitude for a layman to take and is a form of Protestantism in that you the individual decides when a Pope is or is not valid.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

The traditional Christian view has always been providentialism.

I assume by “providentialism” you mean have as many children as possible because “God will provide”?

If so, I would not not agree that is what the Church teaches or has ever taught because that can actually be the sin of presumption and putting God to the test. Knowing you cant provide for children and yet setting out to have as many as possible is a grave sin of gross negligence.

 

[Greg72]

I’m not arguing for BC, I’m arguing that if we are going to condemn it, allowing NFP is non-sensical.

It’s not non-sensical, but it is hard to make sense of.

How is ABC defined as a mortal sin infalible though?

I’m not sure what you mean, but until around 1930, every Christian denomination knew that ABC was wrong. The only reason that people think that this issue is debatable is because they are paying more attention to the culture of the day than to the timeless Wisdom of the Church.

I understand why condomes would be immoral, but I don’t get why the Pill is.

Actually, the pill is much worse since it can cause an abortion to occur (and it can damage the woman’s health as well).

 

[IvanKaramozov]

The Hahn’s “rejected” NFP in favor of complete providentialism – i.e., they did NOTHING at all to regulate the size of their family.

correct

 

[IvanKaramozov]

I have not read through this whole thread yet, but here is how I understand it:

1. The Church clearly teaches that deliberately frustrating the act from its natural powers is intrinsically evil. This means Onanism (Gen 38:9) and anything similar. Intrinsically evil means it is wrong at all times.

what exactly do you mean by this?

1. Having relations during infertile times is NOT intrinsically evil, thus the intention determines whether it is a sin or not. Couples who cannot have children or who are past child bearing years are not sinning when they engage because what they are doing is not intrinsically evil. Once you recognize that it is not intrinsically evil means the Church has the authority to set the parameters/clarifications.

1. The Church teaches the conditions for when it is and is not a sin. It teaches that the primary obligation (procreation) can be postponed when certain criteria are met. Here is what Pius XII said:Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life.

Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic     and social so-called "indications," may exempt husband and wife from the     obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial     life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be     lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If,     however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons     either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity     of their union, while continuing to satisfy to tile full their sensuality, can only be the     result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.

(Address to Midwives, 1951)

1. If you disagree with NFP properly understood then at the very least you must logically become sedevacantist and believe Pius XII fell into heresy. The main problem with that is that it is quite a presumptuous attitude for a layman to take and is a form of Protestantism in that you the individual decides when a Pope is or is not valid.

right, which is why I bow to what the Church says, I don’t think that means I have to be thrilled with it, or say it makes any sense to me. Although your explination was clearer than most.

 

[OriginalJS]

For those who don’t like my observation that whether a more nuanced delivery of the message of HV might not have met with as much resistance from Catholics: Encyclicals are always tightly and clearly reasoned. This is because the Church is a teacher, not a mere legislator. If the Church were only a legislator, all that would be necessary would be for the Church to just lay down rules and not waste time and paper with all that reasoning and explanation.

I think it is fact - and if someone can prove different they will straighten me out - that Humane Vitae was not, and has not been, accepted by a lot of Catholics. It is within the realm of reason that a different approach might have realized more success.

As for what a more nuanced approach might be, I don’t know. I am not a churchman or theologian and I would never presume to opine on the best way for the Church to accomplish any portion of its teaching mission.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

what exactly do you mean by this?

Im not sure what you are looking for, but what I mean is that “Onanism”, condoms, pill, etc turn fertile acts into infertile ones. That is intrinsically evil in that it always is wrong under all conditions.

 

[PaulinVA]

Okay, i have a question for those of you who can’t see a distinction between ABC and NFP. You believe that since the end is the same, the means don’t matter.

If a NFP couple engages in the marital embrace on a non fertile day and are trying to avoid pregnancy, did they commit a sin by trying to avoid?

If a NFP couple engages in the marital embrace on a fertile day, but doesn’t know it’s a fertile day and are trying to avoid pregnancy, did they commit a sin by trying to avoid? Even if they conceive?

If a NFP couple engages in the marital embrace on a non fertile day, but doesn’t know it’s non fertile and are trying to conceive, did they commit a sin by making love on a non fertile day?

If a couple on ABC engages in the marital embrace, are they always commiting a sin?

 

[BruceK]

For those who don’t like my observation that whether a more nuanced delivery of the message of HV might not have met with as much resistance from Catholics: Encyclicals are always tightly and clearly reasoned. This is because the Church is a teacher, not a mere legislator. If the Church were only a legislator, all that would be necessary would be for the Church to just lay down rules and not waste time and paper with all that reasoning and explanation.

I think it is fact - and if someone can prove different they will straighten me out - that Humane Vitae was not, and has not been, accepted by a lot of Catholics. It is within the realm of reason that a different approach might have realized more success.

As for what a more nuanced approach might be, I don’t know. I am not a churchman or theologian and I would never presume to opine on the best way for the Church to accomplish any portion of its teaching mission.

**I think it is safe to say that the majority of Catholics around the world did not accept Humanae Vitae (HV), but I am reminded of a quote by Black Panther leader Elridge Cleaver almost exactly the same time HV was published, “your either part of the solution or you’re part of the problem.” You lament the loss of credibility of the Church since HV and speculate perhaps a more nuanced or different approach could have been taken but offer absolutely nothing on what that might be. I will boldly opine and say, with retrospect and hind sight of nearly 40 years later, that I honestly do not see what Paul IV could have possibly done any different without surrending to the Zeitgeist or culture of the day, or for that matter, the slippery slope approach of their protestant brethern. ****

 

[BruceK]

The rythm system is not contraception.

I would love to ask thinkers like Noonan (or your dissenting friend) if they consider the marriage act between a couple who is expecting a baby to be “open to the transmission of life”. If you would ask your friend what he thinks about this, I’d be interested in his reply. (My guess is he’d answer “no”, in which case he’d be wrong. Explaining why he’s wrong might convince him of the truth and consistency of HV.)
GD, here’s my recent exchange with my dissident friend on this very question and this is his answer: “Physiologically sex act by a couple expecting a baby (pregnant wife) is not open to the transmission of ife since there is no possibility of a sperm-ovum interaction which initiates the transmission of life. By intent, it is not open to the transmission of life since a couple with a pregnant wife certainly would not “intend” to initiate a second pregnancy part of the way though a first pregnancy.
But, note that a couple engaging in conjugal intercourse during pregnancy violate HV11’s “open” edict and therefore commit a serious sin - according to HV11.”
So what’s your take on his answer?

 

[mercygate]

Good Daughter;3135338:

The rythm system is not contraception.

I would love to ask thinkers like Noonan (or your dissenting friend) if they consider the marriage act between a couple who is expecting a baby to be "open to the transmission of life

". If you would ask your friend what he thinks about this, I’d be interested in his reply. (My guess is he’d answer “no”, in which case he’d be wrong. Explaining why he’s wrong might convince him of the truth and consistency of HV.)
GD, here’s my recent exchange with my dissident friend on this very question and this is his answer: “Physiologically sex act by a couple expecting a baby (pregnant wife) is not open to the transmission of ife since there is no possibility of a sperm-ovum interaction which initiates the transmission of life. By intent, it is not open to the transmission of life since a couple with a pregnant wife certainly would not “intend” to initiate a second pregnancy part of the way though a first pregnancy.
But, note that a couple engaging in conjugal intercourse during pregnancy violate HV11’s “open” edict and therefore commit a serious sin - according to HV11.”
So what’s your take on his answer?
“Open to life” in the sense that phrase is used in Hv simply refers to an unobstructed natural human marital act.

We do not need to be capable of procreation in order to be open to life in that sense.

BTW, it HAS been known that a woman has conceived *while *pregnant. Scary, and extremely rare, but it has happened.

 

[Chancellare]

Good Daughter;3135338:

The rythm system is not contraception.

I would love to ask thinkers like Noonan (or your dissenting friend) if they consider the marriage act between a couple who is expecting a baby to be "open to the transmission of life

". If you would ask your friend what he thinks about this, I’d be interested in his reply. (My guess is he’d answer “no”, in which case he’d be wrong. Explaining why he’s wrong might convince him of the truth and consistency of HV.)
GD, here’s my recent exchange with my dissident friend on this very question and this is his answer: “Physiologically sex act by a couple expecting a baby (pregnant wife) is not open to the transmission of ife since there is no possibility of a sperm-ovum interaction which initiates the transmission of life. By intent, it is not open to the transmission of life since a couple with a pregnant wife certainly would not “intend” to initiate a second pregnancy part of the way though a first pregnancy.
But, note that a couple engaging in conjugal intercourse during pregnancy violate HV11’s “open” edict and therefore commit a serious sin - according to HV11.”
So what’s your take on his answer?

“Open to life” means you did not “interfere”, regardless of the condition or the cycle you’re in.
Man does not have the monopoly (God does) to determine “when” it is open to life within the cycle, so long as he did not interfere artificially by means of human devices.
Man’s knowledge of the reproductive cycle does not determine 100% the outcome of reproductive cycle. So intercourse during pregnancy is not a 100% determination that there will be no more pregnancy.