Humanae Vitae ONLY applies to married couples

[setter]

So says our priest at a recent meeting of our marriage preparation ministry team. He said this when discussing and defending how when an engaged couple continue to fornicate, that he always and at least advises the couple to use ABC. He also made the strong emphasis that one’s moral conscience is between the couple and God alone, and that it is unseemly to tell anyone that they are going to hell if they use ABC.

My question: Does HV only apply to married couples as this priest claims?

 

[DailyBread]

It applies to married couples only in the sense that married couples are the only ones who are permitted to engage in sexual relations and not use ABC. The priest is wrong to direct un-married couples in the use of ABC because that implies they are permitted to have sexual relations when that is the grave sin of fornication which would be a misuse of his priestly position. Adding ABC on top of the sin is another sin in itself since purposely making a sexual act infertile is intrinsically wrong (regardless if one is married or not). It could be likened to persons without a drivers licenses. They are not permitted to drive the car in the first place. In addition, if they break the law and drive the car anyway, they still must obey the rules of the road. Unlicensed drivers do not get free passes to do donuts in the parking lot.
Instead, the priest must guide his sheep like Jesus with a firm steady and patient hand to turn away from sin.

 

[Brendan]

How can this priest somehow believe that this section of HV DOESN’T apply to engaged couples:

Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source. “Human life is sacred – all men must recognize that fact”, our predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled. “From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God.”

Is he trying to say that engaged couples are not human, because HV specifically says that humans have no right of control over thier fertility.

Or this:

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreationwhether as an end or as a means. (

Where does it say that engaged sexual intercourse is excluded?

 

[BobP123]

Fornication is sinful. Whether one uses ABC appears to determine only to what degree the mortal sin is made more mortal, if that makes any sense.

 

[1ke]

So says our priest at a recent meeting of our marriage preparation ministry team. He said this when discussing and defending how when an engaged couple continue to fornicate, that he always and at least advises the couple to use ABC. He also made the strong emphasis that one’s moral conscience is between the couple and God alone, and that it is unseemly to tell anyone that they are going to hell if they use ABC.

My question: Does HV only apply to married couples as this priest claims?

No. That’s just silly.

And, you need to report this priest immediately for teaching such error to impressionable young people.

Good grief.

 

[Cristiano]

He also made the strong emphasis that one’s moral conscience is between the couple and God alone, and that it is unseemly to tell anyone that they are going to hell if they use ABC.

He is correct about that. A couple with a well formed conscience follows the will of God, and His will is made clear by the Church through her infallible teachings (see Humanae Vitae).

A well formed conscience is in full agreement with the Church teachings. However, a couple with a poorly formed conscience may disagree with the Church teachings but should remember that it is still bound to obey God’s will.

Finally the priest is right by saying hat he cannot tell who will go to hell; however, it would be wiser for him to make it clear that there is a real possibility of going to hell because of ABC.

 

[Alda]

So says our priest at a recent meeting of our marriage preparation ministry team. He said this when discussing and defending how when an engaged couple continue to fornicate, that he always and at least advises the couple to use ABC. He also made the strong emphasis that one’s moral conscience is between the couple and God alone, and that it is unseemly to tell anyone that they are going to hell if they use ABC.

My question: Does HV only apply to married couples as this priest claims?

This is such a shame. I agree with 1ke that you maybe should report this to the Bishop.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

My question: Does HV only apply to married couples as this priest claims?

** Setter,**

I may be the lone dissenting voice on this thread (note: dissenting to the conclusions discussed so far, not dissenting from Humanae Vitae!).

I think it seems fairly clear that Humanae Vitae is only addressing married couples.

So, I think you might want to tread carefully in regard to confronting your priest. I believe he is correct on that point.

However, just because HV addresses married couples only does not mean contraception is fair game for all unmarried couples, in all situations, etc. But the moral analysis does NOT hinge on Humanae Vitae, which says that contraception within marriage is intrinsically evil.

** Brendan,** the longer quote from Humanae Vitae that you reproduced above is from paragraph 13 and is preceded by this:

1. Men rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one’s partner without regard to his or her condition or personal and reasonable wishes in the matter, is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife. If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator.

And your second quote is from paragraph 14:

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.

But the official Latin text is:

Quapropter erret omnino, qui arbitretur coniugalem actum, sua fecunditate ex industria destitutum, ideoque intrinsece inhonestum, fecundis totius coniugum vitae congressionibus comprobari posse.

And conjugalem actum is the conjugal or marital act. Furthermore if you read paragraph 14 in its entirety, it is clear that it is referring only to marriage.

Again, let me be clear that I am not laying out a position regarding the morality of contraception in general. I am asserting only that Humanae Vitae seems to be directed only to contraception within the context of marriage. On that point, I think your priest is correct.

** Setter**, I bring this up because I would think it important to any position you take to be certain of Humanae Vitae’s application. If the priest is right *on that point, *and I think he is, and you contradict him, you might lessen your credibility in regard to other valid points you may have.

What do you think?
VC

 

[Cristiano]

** Setter,**

I may be the lone dissenting voice on this thread (note: dissenting to the conclusions discussed so far, not dissenting from Humanae Vitae!).

I think it seems fairly clear that Humanae Vitae is only addressing married couples.

So, I think you might want to tread carefully in regard to confronting your priest. I believe he is correct on that point.

However, just because HV addresses married couples only does not mean contraception is fair game for all unmarried couples, in all situations, etc. But the moral analysis does NOT hinge on Humanae Vitae, which says that contraception within marriage is intrinsically evil.

** Brendan,** the longer quote from Humanae Vitae that you reproduced above is from paragraph 13 and is preceded by this:
And your second quote is from paragraph 14:But the official Latin text is:
And conjugalem actum is the conjugal or marital act. Furthermore if you read paragraph 14 in its entirety, it is clear that it is referring only to marriage.

Again, let me be clear that I am not laying out a position regarding the morality of contraception in general. I am asserting only that Humanae Vitae seems to be directed only to contraception within the context of marriage. On that point, I think your priest is correct.

** Setter**, I bring this up because I would think it important to any position you take to be certain of Humanae Vitae’s application. If the priest is right *on that point, *and I think he is, and you contradict him, you might lessen your credibility in regard to other valid points you may have.

What do you think?
VC

If we follow this logic then abortion too is forbidden only for married couples, and that in some special cases abortion can be allowed for unmarried women.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

So says our priest at a recent meeting of our marriage preparation ministry team. He said this when discussing and defending how when an engaged couple continue to fornicate, that he always and at least advises the couple to use ABC. He also made the strong emphasis that one’s moral conscience is between the couple and God alone, and that it is unseemly to tell anyone that they are going to hell if they use ABC.

My question: Does HV only apply to married couples as this priest claims?

Sex only applies to married couples.

If you’re not married, you’re free to do anything you want, including paying the consequences, which can be quite hot.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

If we follow this logic then abortion too is forbidden only for married couples, and that in some special cases abortion can be allowed for unmarried women.

Hi Cristiano,

I’m not sure I understand your objection. Direct abortion is intrinsically evil. There are numerous instances where the Church has defined it so, as well as it being a conclusion from more general principles of moral theology.

I don’t think saying that HV was addressing and condemning artificial contraception only within the context of marriage would in any way undermine the Church’s teaching on abortion.

Again, please note that I am NOT talking about whether contraception is right or wrong. I am only addressing the question regarding HV applying only to married couples. It seems that it does.

VC

 

[Brendan]

[And *conjugalem actum

is the conjugal or marital act. Furthermore if you read paragraph 14 in its entirety, it is clear that it is referring only to marriage.VC

Conjugalem “Con” with ogether “Jugalem” joined, means any consentual joining, it clearly does not refer to that with matrimony, otherwise, Pope Paul would have used “matrimonium actum”

So the prohibition certainly applies to fornication as well, unless you are trying to say that one part of the engaged couple is not consenting, in which case, that’s called ‘date rape’

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Conjugalem “Con” with ogether “Jugalem” joined, means any consentual joining, it clearly does not refer to that with matrimony, otherwise, Pope Paul would have used “matrimonium actum”

** Brendan**,

I don’t think you can use a standard etymological dictionary to ascertain what conjugalem actum means in the context of Humanae Vitae. If you look in an eccleasial Latin dictionary you are likely to find that conjugalis, and the various related words, mean marital.

Again, I am NOT addressing contraception in general. I am only stating that it seems that Humanae Vitae’s condemnation of artificial contraception as intrinsically evil is within the context of marriage.

Recall that* Humanae Vitae* itself begins:

The transmission of human life is a most serious role in which married people collaborate freely and responsibly with God the Creator. It has always been a source of great joy to them, even though it sometimes entails many difficulties and hardships.
The fulfillment of this duty has always posed problems to the conscience of married people. . .

Brendan:

So the prohibition certainly applies to fornication as well

Brendan, the Church may very well condemn contraception outside of marriage (although there is some question among moral theologians whether it would be also considered intrinsically evil; there are good reasons to consider it extrinsically evil at any rate). My point is not about contraception in general. My point is that Humanae Vitae in particular is not addressed to condemning extra-marital contraception.*

VC

*Again, I want to stress that, just so other posters do not get the wrong impression, I am not addressing the Church’s teaching on contraception in general. I am only pointing out that Humane Vitae is limiting itself to martial relations. I think this is important for the the orginal poster Setter to consider. I note, too, that just because HV doesn’t outright condemn extra-martial contraception, the priest’s argument presented above by Setter doesn’t necessarily follow from that fact.

In other words, Setter, I don’t think it would be fruitful to engage on the question of Humanae Vitae’s scope, but rather on the other points of his argument.

 

[FriendLiiFiRe]

What is ABC? What is HV?

 

[Delphinus85]

short answer: no

Long answer: no. It’s like saying that you should save sex for marraige, but if you don’t, and you get pregnant. Get an abortion. The provision of ABC to unmarried couples makes it FAR more likely to make a mistake. At times when my husband and I were dating, we refused to keep a condom in the house “just in case” as our friends advised. Because we knew we could get pregnant if we did, that fear kept us pure and sometimes, sad to say, it was the ONLY thing that did when things got hard closer to the wedding.

 

[Pug]

If anyone (Si aliquis) for the sake of fulfilling sexual desire or with premeditated hatred does something to a man or a woman, or gives something to drink, so that he cannot generate or she cannot conceive or offspring be born, let him be held as a murderer.

This was in canon law for maybe 600 years? It does not reference the married only. Traditionally, contraception and murder/abortion are closely related. Perhaps you need to look outside of HV for your support in the case of fornication.

Here is Chrysostom

Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit? Where there are medicines of sterility? Where there is murder before birth? You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot but you make her a murderess as well. Do you not see that from drunkenness comes fornication, from fornication adultery, from adultery murder? Indeed, it is something worse than murder and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you contemn the gift of God, and fight with his law?
…Do you make the anteroom of birth the anteroom of slaughter? Do you teach the woman who is given to you for the procreation of offspring to perpetuate killing?

I pulled the quotes from an article, which came up when I looked for si aliquis.

christendom-awake.org/pages/may/contraception.htm

 

[Newbie2]

Interesting position; where one sin (fornication) could exclude the couple from another (ABC).

Could this be taken farther to say that non-engaged couples, while engaging in fornication, are also not under the ABC ban?

 

[setter]

Again, I am NOT addressing contraception in general. I am only stating that it seems that Humanae Vitae’s condemnation of artificial contraception as intrinsically evil is within the context of marriage.

Brendan, the Church may very well condemn contraception outside of marriage (although there is some question among moral theologians whether it would be also considered intrinsically evil; there are good reasons to consider it extrinsically evil at any rate). My point is not about contraception in general. My point is that Humanae Vitae in particular is not addressed to condemning extra-marital contraception.*

VC

So for the priest to cite HV as justification for his pastoral counsel to condone and promote ABC to fornicating unmarried couples is erroneous as best.

*Again, I want to stress that, just so other posters do not get the wrong impression, I am not addressing the Church’s teaching on contraception in general. I am only pointing out that Humane Vitae is limiting itself to martial relations. I think this is important for the the orginal poster Setter to consider. I note, too, that just because HV doesn’t outright condemn extra-martial contraception, the priest’s argument presented above by Setter doesn’t necessarily follow from that fact.

Does it not make you wonder why then he cited HV in defense of recommending ABC to those who are guilty of the serious sin of fornication?

BTW – Is not [intrinsic] sin always sin is always sin? How can contraception not be considered evil in itself when it acts against the procreative good and violates the dignity of the person made in the image and likeness of God, regardless of one’s marital status?

1706 By his reason, man recognizes the voice of God which urges him “to do what is good and avoid what is evil.” Everyone is obliged to follow this law, which makes itself heard in conscience and is fulfilled in the love of God and of neighbor. Living a moral life bears witness to the dignity of the person. (CCC)

In other words, Setter, I don’t think it would be fruitful to engage on the question of Humanae Vitae’s scope, but rather on the other points of his argument.

…or rather the absence of a sound and valid argument by this priest to defend his prescription of an intrinsic evil (ABC) to overlay, by way of providing coverage, for the unintended consequences (pregnancy) of engaging in another intrinsic evil (fornication). Perhaps I should turn this priest’s argument on its head and ask him why in the world he does not instead coach these unrepentent, resistent, and/or impulsive fornicating couples to instead minimally learn and try to practice the morally acceptable option of NFP which has a 98% effective rate (when properly used), by way of pointing toward and preparing them for chastity in the married vocation?

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)

 

[Verbum_Caro]

So for the priest to cite HV as justification for his pastoral counsel to condone and promote ABC to fornicating unmarried couples is erroneous as best.

Right, although he seems to be correct that HV addresses married couples only, it doesn’t follow from that fact that artificial contraception outside of marriage is a good thing.

Does it not make you wonder why then he cited HV in defense of recommending ABC to those who are guilty of the serious sin of fornication?

Well, I think it would be a good defense if someone argued with him along the lines of “HV condemns contraception always, everywhere, and for everyone.” Did anyone bring up HV and say that HV condemns contraception “in general”?

BTW – Is not [intrinsic] sin always sin is always sin? How can contraception not be considered evil in itself when it acts against the procreative good and violates the dignity of the person made in the image and likeness of God, regardless of one’s marital status?

I think that is an excellent point Setter. Notice that I was very careful in what I said in my previous post: “the Church may very well condemn contraception outside of marriage (although there is some question among moral theologians whether it would be also considered intrinsically evil; there are good reasons to consider it extrinsically evil at any rate).” Although it seems the arguments are still being fleshed out, I think the idea, in a nutshell, is that talking about the unitive and procreative ends only makes sense in the the context of marriage, and the contraceptive disruption of these ends are certainly intrinsically and extrinsically evil within marriage, but outside of marriage there is no unitive and procreative end, so it might not be an intrinsic evil but still an extrinsic evil in so far as it has all kinds of other effects which offend against the dignity of the person and of marriage and of society. I’m not sure whether or not the Church has taken an official stance on this yet. (This might involve the rape/HIV issues).

Perhaps I should turn this priest’s argument on its head and ask him why in the world he does not instead coach these unrepentent, resistent, and/or impulsive fornicating couples to instead minimally learn and try to practice the morally acceptable option of NFP which has a 98% effective rate (when properly used), by way of pointing toward and preparing them for chastity in the married vocation?

Exactly. There is great harm in advocating contraception to non-married couples because it perpetuates the sin of fornication and contributes to the decline of marriage (and all of the other effects that follow from that).

What do you think?
VC

 

[Confused_1_1]

If we follow this logic then abortion too is forbidden only for married couples, and that in some special cases abortion can be allowed for unmarried women.

Wrong, his source was the papal encyclical.

Following this logic is not applied here, because Humanae Vitae is not addressing abortion.

Eitherways, I believe Humanae Vitae applies to all, not only married couples.