Humanae vitae dissent - is it heresy?

Status
Not open for further replies.
VADEMECUM FOR CONFESSORS
  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. 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.
Just because the Sexual Revolution came about doesnt change the teaching that has been held for the past 2000 years. If that were the case people could change the teachings of all sorts of Dogmas by gathering enough votes and stirring the pot. Look at the Arian heresy where many people even people in the Church strayed from the Truth.
 
Last edited:
The teaching on slavery has changed multiple times. Many people have problems with the word “change” so they say that teachings evolve. Many teachings have “evolved” through the centuries, which I interpret as holding to the core concept of the teaching, but changing its application or externalities. The evolution can be quite dramatic, such as the evolution of the doctrine of EENS, and the evolution of usury.
 
Last edited:
LittleFlower378 said:
The Church teaching on the intrinsic evil of contraception is a dogma
Click to expand...
Is it?

Don’t get me wrong, I am entirely convinced that contraception is intrinsically evil (or rather, the use of contraception when the intent is to prevent a pregnancy in a mutually willful act of intercourse), but does it rise to the level of dogma?

Or do moral teachings in general ever constitute dogma at all? I normally associate “dogma” with matters of faith, not morality (e.g., teachings on the Trinity, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Marian dogmas, etc.).

That is to say, teachings on morality are no more the proper object of doubt than are matters of faith, but do they fall into a lesser realm of certitude?

Could we ever see the Pope infallibly declare abortion, contraception, homosexual acts, and so on, to be intrinsically evil?
 
HomeschoolDad said:
I am not referring merely to knowing the Church’s teaching, giving it the assent of faith, but going ahead and using contraception anyway because of a lack of trust in God
Click to expand...
Humanae Vitae says nothing about a lack of trust in God. Casti Conubii affirmed the value of marital chastity, making it clear that abstinence in marriage is not immoral and can be done to prevent pregnancy. It does specify a grave reason. Humanae Vitae actually does not specify a grave reason but calls couples to discern the needs of their family with how strictly or non strictly they practice NFP. It affirms that BOTH those who limit their family size for just reasons AND those who have a large family OUT OF PRUDENCE and GENEROCITY, are practicing responsible parenthood.

There’s nothing in Humanae Vitae that argues a large family is what Catholic piety exclusively looks like. It defends large families but it defends small families as well. Beyond that, it condemns contraception as a means of pregnancy prevention and limits us to NFP.
(that is simply called “sin”)
Click to expand...
To sin is to miss the mark of moral perfection.

Moral perfection with chastity would involve a couple who freely abstain from sexual relations until they are married, neither rushing marriage nor needlessly delaying marriage, and then using NFP to engage in sex when it is prudent to do so.

Everyone does and will fall short of this. The unfortunate thing is that we go beyond affirming what we are called to, and instead insist that there is a morally correct way to sin.
I am referring to those who simply say “the Church’s teaching on contraception is wrong because of x, y, or z” (e.g., those who say that Pope Paul VI’s appeal to natural law is wrong).
Click to expand...
I think most people dissent from Church teaching because they don’t understand it and because of pride.
 
Last edited:
And what were those priests taught when they were in seminary? They were misled and later misled their congregation based on what they were taught. Had people remained faithful and given their assent to what Pope Paul VI had given them and us, then no snowball effect would have occurred.
 
Thats why is always important to remain faithful to the Holy Father. The Pope has the final word.
 
After Vatican II, what did the public get, including Catholics in the pews? Not the actual story of Vatican II but the media version. Pope Benedict addressed this shortly before stepping down as Pope. Within 24 hours after the publication of Humanae Vitae, what did the public get? A full page ad in the New York Times with a statement by Catholic theologians who went beyond their authority as theologians. Their message boiled down to: It’s OK to use contraception. At that time in history, Catholics gave the authority of the Church much closer attention. However, in 1967, Time magazine ran a cover story about The Pill. The public was presented with a false freedom. What they called a “freedom from fear.” Fear of what? Babies.
 
So the news media was a big contribution to denounce Catholic dogma and doctrine. Now with the invention of the internet and smart phones, we should be even more aware and on guard.
 
In 1967 and 1968, most Catholics knew Humanae Vitae was coming. The dissenters were ready to act should Pope Paul VI go the “wrong” way. He did and they acted to make sure that clear Church teaching was overwritten.
 
Some people, not referring to you, worship a false idol called Change.
 
TMC said:
The teaching on slavery has changed multiple times. Many people have problems with the word “change” so they say that teachings evolve. Many teachings have “evolved” through the centuries, which I interpret as holding to the core concept of the teaching, but changing its application or externalities. The evolution can be quite dramatic, such as the evolution of the doctrine of EENS, and the evolution of usury.
Click to expand...
You are wrong. Have a read of the article on Catholic Answers. Slavery is the usual topic brought up by anti-Catholics.

 
Last edited:
Humanae Vitae was all about wrong ideas about human sexuality and Pope Paul VI accurately predicted what would happen if his words were not followed. So-called Adult Bookstores that appeared everywhere in the 1970s, would multiply temptations.
 
I’ve seen the hatred of the past presented before. I was there in the past, referring to the 1950s and early 1960s. It was not perfect. There was crime and all the rest. What we did experience was a low crime rate and we did not lock our doors at night. Most of our neighbors were good neighbors. We had a few bad apples but my parents told me not to bother such people. To be polite to them. It did not matter that others went to different churches than we did. We had shared community values and standards.

Church teachings cannot change but some come here advocating change regardless of what the Church actually teaches.
 
thistle said:
You are wrong. Have a read of the article on Catholic Answers. Slavery is the usual topic brought up by anti-Catholics.
Click to expand...
I am not an “anti-Catholic.”

I have heard all the mental gymnastics to explain away the various changes in the teaching on slavery. Simply put, they are incorrect. At various times in history the Church has condemned slavery, no question - sometimes condemning all slavery, at other times limiting slavery to certain people or circumstances. At other times the Church has accepted slavery more broadly, and even owned slaves. The Church now condemns slavery, and hopefully will stay with that position. Catholics need not fear understanding their own history - the evolution of teaching on slavery is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Of course slavery is not the only example, or even the only example I listed.
 
LittleFlower378 said:
Thats why is always important to remain faithful to the Holy Father. The Pope has the final word.
Click to expand...
As someone who would never turn blind faith over to any one that way, I have to ask, don’t you see how dangerous that is?

Just asking because I have always been curious about that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top