Humanae Vitae "Definitive and Irreformable"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Randy_Carson

Guest
VADEMECUM FOR CONFESSORS CONCERNING SOME ASPECTS OF THE MORALITY OF CONJUGAL LIFE
  1. The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. [emphasis added] Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity; it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life.
Vatican City*, February 12, 1997.*

Alfonso Card. López Trujillo
President of the Pontifical Council
for the Family
+ Francisco Gil Hellín
Secretary

This sounds pretty “infallible” to me. Thoughts?
 
Randy_Carson said:
VADEMECUM FOR CONFESSORS CONCERNING SOME ASPECTS OF THE MORALITY OF CONJUGAL LIFE
  1. The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. [emphasis added] Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity; it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life.
Vatican City*, February 12, 1997.*

Alfonso Card. López Trujillo
President of the Pontifical Council
for the Family
+ Francisco Gil Hellín
Secretary

This sounds pretty “infallible” to me. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
In my opinion I don’t think its an infallible document in itself but it is confirming the infallible teaching of the evils of contraception that the Church has always held.
 
It is a reaffirmation of the infallible teaching of the church through the ages. Infallible doctrine.
 
Here we go again…

I am sure the fornicators, aborters and the spousal sexual abusers will be trying to justify their depravity and evil.

Of course Humanae Vitae is infallible. It is consistant with what the Church has always taught. (Despite popular opinion, artificial contraception and abortion predate the Incarnation of Christ. They probably predate Abraham!)
 
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!
 
G.K Chesterton said one of the things he admired about the Catholic Church was “the power of being decisive first and proved right later.” I think Humana Vitae is a sterling example of this. At the beginning of the sexual revolution in the 1960’s, Pope Paul VI came out with this encyclical that predicted that contraception would render women as merely sex objects. Lookinh back four decades later, with rising abortion, STDs, broken homes and a sex saturated society, I agree with maranatha that it was prophetic.
 
Jerry-Jet said:
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!
Click to expand...
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)?
 
Jerry-Jet said:
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?
Click to expand...
Each and every marital act using NFP is open to fertility.
 
Each and every marital act using NFP is open to fertility.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Randy_Carson said:
Agree? Disagree?

Humanae Vitae is infallible?
Click to expand...
The Roman Church teaches it is. I became aware of this, and because of this (among other reasons) I have left the Catholic Church.

Planning on joining the Anglican communion, by the way.
 
noma said:
The Roman Church teaches it is. I became aware of this, and because of this (among other reasons) I have left the Catholic Church.

Planning on joining the Anglican communion, by the way.
Click to expand...
So were your reasons theological or simply practical? As in you don’t like the Catholic Churches teaching on x because it interferes with your ability to practice x.

Mel
 
Melchior said:
So were your reasons theological or simply practical? As in you don’t like the Catholic Churches teaching on x because it interferes with your ability to practice x.

Mel
Click to expand...
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.
 
noma said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is a troubling post, Noma, and I am saddened by your decison. I recall you and I had some interesting discussions a few months ago on the topic of contraception.

I think that one of the great difficulties we as humans, and particularly Americans, is submitting to authority. In this case, the authority of the Church.

It is sinful men who have always carried the word of God. It is sinful men who have transmitted it down the centuries and preserve it still.

God is unchangable. That is an essential theological position. God is also both infinitly merciful and infinitly just.

What was sinful 1,500 years ago, as the Church taught about contraception, abortion, homosexual activity (not homosexuals themselves, but the homosexual act), fornication, murder, theft, and all the other moral teachings is still sinful. They will all still be sinful 1,500 years from now.

That is because of what I just wrote, God is unchangable.

The Catholic Church is the only church whose doctrines and moral teachings have not changed. Refined? Yes. Better understood and explained? Yes. Altered? No.

Other churches have changed, such as the Anglican Church which, until the 1930s, taught contraception was sinful. Now, they teach it is not sinful. So, did God change? Or did we simply misunderstand Him for thousands of years? Or is it, perhaps, the Protestants are wrong on this matter. You are free to believe any of these possibilities, But for me, I believe it is the third.

Chirsitianity is hard. Following God’s law is hard. That is why Christ said narrow is the path to Heaven.

Humanae Vitae is a challenge to our obedience to God. Obedience to God can be demonstrated by being obedient to His Church. Obedience to God does not include looking around for a Christian denomination or religion until you find one that will not condemn what you do.

My prayers are with you, Noma, my friend. :gopray2: May God grant you wisdom and peace and help open your eyes (and mine as well) to the light of His Truth and the joy of His constant presence.
 
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.
Click to expand...
noma,

You are claiming that authority. You can’t accept God establishing a hierarchical Church…but you’ll accept him giving you the authority to be your own “pope”.

Gorman
 
gorman64 said:
noma,

You are claiming that authority. You can’t accept God establishing a hierarchical Church…but you’ll accept him giving you the authority to be your own “pope”.

Gorman
Click to expand...
Every Christian is pope, in the sense that they have the authority given originally to St. Peter. And that authority is to speak in matters of faith and morals, protected from error, of the message of Christ. There is always uncertainty as to what statements qualify as matters of faith and morals, and whether this really is the message of Christ (such as contraception, which I hold was misunderstood by the Church because of bad science and bad theology, but not because of bad dogma).
 
Every Christian is pope, in the sense that they have the authority given originally to St. Peter. And that authority is to speak in matters of faith and morals, protected from error, of the message of Christ.
Click to expand...
And how was the Authority entrusted to Peter given to you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top