Humanae Vitae "Definitive and Irreformable"

[Melchior]

It is both theological and practical. I see nothing wrong with practicing contraception (or with certain other “irreformably denounced” practices, such as women or gays being able to be priests, or open communion). Theologically, I would refuse to accept a god who would give authority to a sinful human, to the degree the Roman Church claims the Pope possesses.

While not addressing your view of the Pope. I will say it is apparent, with all due respect, that you want a God in your own image and not vice versa. A god in your own image is no god at all or worse, self worship. You value your intellect above God’s commands in scripture.

“There is a way that seems right to man that in the end leads to death”

 

[noma]

And how was the Authority entrusted to Peter given to you?

The authority given to St. Peter first, was given because he proclaimed who Christ is.

When we proclaim who Christ is, He gives us the same authority as He gave first to St. Peter.

St. Peter is the first, and His succession is in all believers.

 

[noma]

You value your intellect above God’s commands in scripture.

Though this may be true (and I pray to overcome this sin of pride), where is that shown in what I have said? What scriptures have I devalued?

 

[gorman64]

The authority given to St. Peter first, was given because he proclaimed who Christ is.

When we proclaim who Christ is, He gives us the same authority as He gave first to St. Peter.

St. Peter is the first, and His succession is in all believers.

And what is the source for this? What theologians teach this?

 

[noma]

And what is the source for this? What theologians teach this?

I am derailing this post, for which I am very sorry. I tried to start this topic on the apologetics forum, but no one picked it up.

I may try again in the future, in which case I will send you a private message, letting you know where it is.

For the purpose of this conversation, I will not send you a satisfying response.

I do apologize again.

 

[Genesis315]

I think the real question is: are maritable acts that are intended to be unfruitful by the use of Natural Family Planning–are they intrinsically evil?

I don’t think that is so. In other words while the statement cited may be definitive and irreformable–I don’t believe it is all encompassing in a narrow legalistic sense.

Of course it could be that when one uses Natural Family Planning that they are not RENDERING the marital act to be unfruitful because the couple is still open to life.

I believe in Irreformal and definitive Doctrine of the Catholic Church–I think one has to be careful when stating and applying exactly what it is in all cases.

P.S. Randy I pray that your topic will be fruitful here!

An act fo intercourse during an infertile month is not rendering the act unfruitful because the act is already unfruitful by natural biology, not by some act of the couple.

 

[Genesis315]

By the way, NFP was not new with Humae Vitae, the Church has always upheld it as a valid means of family planning:

From an article in “This Rock” (the whole article is worth reading):

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0502fea2.asp

The first time Rome spoke on the matter was 1853, when the Sacred Penitentiary answered a dubium (a formal request for an official clarification) submitted by the bishop of Amiens, France. He asked, “Should those spouses be reprehended who make use of marriage only on those days when (in the opinion of some doctors) conception is impossible?” The reply was: “After mature examination, we have decided that such spouses should not be disturbed [or disquieted], provided they do nothing that impedes generation” (quoted in J. Montánchez, Teología Moral 654, my translation). By the expression “impedes generation,” it is obvious the Vatican meant the use of onanism (or coitus interruptus, now popularly called “withdrawal”), condoms, etc. Otherwise the reply would be self-contradictory.

The next time the issue was raised was in 1880, when the Sacred Penitentiary issued a more general response . The precise question posed was this: “Whether it is licit to make use of marriage only on those days when it is more difficult for conception to occur?” The response was: “Spouses using the aforesaid method are not to be disturbed; and a confessor may, with due caution, suggest this proposal to spouses, if his other attempts to lead them away from the detestable crime of onanism have proved fruitless.” (This decision was published in Nouvelle Revue Théologique 13 [1881]: 459–460 and in Analecta Iuris Pontificii 22 [1883], 249.)

One could not ask for a more obvious and explicit proof that more than eighty years before Vatican II, Rome saw a great moral difference between NFP (as we now call it) and contraceptive methods, which Catholic moralists then referred to as onanism.

This was the doctrine and pastoral practice that all priests learned in seminary from the mid-nineteenth century onward. Before Pius XI was elected, Blessed Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, and Benedict XV all clearly approved of this status quo established by their own Sacred Penitentiary and never showed the slightest inclination to reverse its decisions of 1853 and 1880.

 

[Anna_Elizabeth]

Good heavens! What have I done? My post was meant to thank rpp for what I considered a really fine post, and what I did in fact was compliment noma with whom I don’t agree at all!

I thnk this is an ARGH! moment! :banghead:

Mea culpa!

Anna

 

[rpp]

Very nicely put, -]noma/-] rpp.

Anna

Good heavens! What have I done? My post was meant to thank rpp for what I considered a really fine post, and what I did in fact was compliment noma with whom I don’t agree at all!

I thnk this is an ARGH! moment! :banghead:

Mea culpa!

Anna

No problem! Was my correct accurate?

I make those mistakes all the time. Especially calling people by the wrong name. (Not a good habit when you are married! Which, of course, I am not - uh - anymore. )

And thank you, Anna.

 

[gorman64]

One could not ask for a more obvious and explicit proof that more than eighty years before Vatican II, Rome saw a great moral difference between NFP (as we now call it) and contraceptive methods, which Catholic moralists then referred to as onanism.

This was the doctrine and pastoral practice that all priests learned in seminary from the mid-nineteenth century onward. Before Pius XI was elected, Blessed Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, and Benedict XV all clearly approved of this status quo established by their own Sacred Penitentiary and never showed the slightest inclination to reverse its decisions of 1853 and 1880.

Were there any limits placed on the use of NFP? Or was it encouraged to be used by all Catholics?

 

[Genesis315]

It seems the same limits of “grave reasons” has always been used (that is the exact phrase used by Pius XII).

 

[Genesis315]

Here are Pius XII’s words from his allocution to midwives:

“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 the 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 on the Nature of Their Profession

 

[rpp]

So is choosing, by mutual assent, not the denial of one spouse of the other, to refrain from the marital act, without regard to NFP, licit? It would seem to be based on the Pius XII quote.

I think it gets problematic when one spouse does not want to make the sacrifice of temparary continence.

 

[setter]

Originally Posted by setter
Each and every marital act using NFP is open to fertility

.

This does not mean that every use of NFP is licit…unless you think the vast majority of married Catholics have grave reasons to limit their families.

I was referring only to the intrinsic good of the conjugal act itself when practicing NFP.

1751 The *object chosen *is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience. (CCC)

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

• the object chosen;
• the end in view or the intention;
• the circumstances of the action.

The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts. (CCC)

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil. (CCC)

**1757 **The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the three “sources” of the morality of human acts.

 

[gorman64]

It seems the same limits of “grave reasons” has always been used (that is the exact phrase used by Pius XII).

Can you provide some recent references to these “grave reasons”…how are they stated today? What does a modern moral theology manual say compared to a pre-Vatican II manual?

 

[Julianna]

The conjugal act inside of marriage cannot be intrinsically evil. NFP is not intrinsically evil. The intentional frustration of the conjugal act is what is evil…if it is done by artificial means of by an improper use of natural means.

Do you think many Catholics today use either ABC (or NFP improperly)?

yes

 

[gorman64]

Yes, I would agree.

Are they doing this on their own…or are they, in many cases, aided or encouraged by the teaching apostolate?

 

[Julianna]

Yes, I would agree.

Are they doing this on their own…or are they, in many cases, aided or encouraged by the teaching apostolate?

all you have to do is look around your parish and count the children…you will have your answer…if you have been going there for years…and you know suzy and john got married the same year as mary and bob…and fast forward 10 yrs, and suzy and john have 5 kids and mary and bob have 2…and fast forward 10 more…and suzy and john have 3 more and mary and bob still have 2…there is your clue.

 

[SedesDomi]

Humanae Vitae challenges people to go beyond themselves. Insofar as it successfully does that, it has my support.

To say anything else, would be uncivilized.

 

[gorman64]

all you have to do is look around your parish and count the children…you will have your answer…if you have been going there for years…and you know suzy and john got married the same year as mary and bob…and fast forward 10 yrs, and suzy and john have 5 kids and mary and bob have 2…and fast forward 10 more…and suzy and john have 3 more and mary and bob still have 2…there is your clue.

Another clue is the fact that modern Catholics and non-Catholics alike will ask you point blank if you are going to have any more children…or if you are “finished”…or tell you they are “finished”. I have even heard some refer to a young child standing next to them as a “mistake”.