Humanae Vitae ONLY applies to married couples

[Jestocost]

I’ll disagree with the consensus here. Non-abortifacient emergency contraception is allowed in cases of rape. I know that is not what is being discussed, but it does argue that ABC is not intrinsically evil. My admittedly poor understanding of the arguments against it is that it drags marital relations down to the level of fornication.

I don’t think that the priests advise for necessarily right for engaged couples, but it drives me nuts to hear that someone (usually a young adult male) refuses to use a condom because it’s against Church teaching, while ignoring the fact that fornication is as well.

 

[Confused_1_1]

I’ll disagree with the consensus here. Non-abortifacient emergency contraception is allowed in cases of rape. I know that is not what is being discussed, but it does argue that ABC is not intrinsically evil. My admittedly poor understanding of the arguments against it is that it drags marital relations down to the level of fornication.

I don’t think that the priests advise for necessarily right for engaged couples, but it drives me nuts to hear that someone (usually a young adult male) refuses to use a condom because it’s against Church teaching, while ignoring the fact that fornication is as well.

No, I don’t think Humanae Vitae calls it intrinsically evil does it? Infact sometimes ABC like the pill is ok’ed for some woman who need it for matters besides birth control because of its other effects. But that is of course at the discretion of a priest who sees it fit.

 

[HenryV]

No, I don’t think Humanae Vitae calls it intrinsically evil does it? Infact sometimes ABC like the pill is ok’ed for some woman who need it for matters besides birth control because of its other effects. But that is of course at the discretion of a priest who sees it fit.

Contraception is intrinsically evil, it’s explicitly stated in Splendor Veritatis by JP2.

By the way, I thought the 6th commandment was for everyone but maybe you should ask father again

 

[Cristiano]

Wrong, his source was the papal encyclical.

Teachings of the Church and morality are not defined only by encyclicals. Just because one encyclical addresses only a category of sin or of sinner, that does not imply that everything else is allowed.

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

I am not sure I get what you are trying to say.

 

[porthos11]

Where does it say that engaged sexual intercourse is excluded?

This is actually a mistranslation. The Latin has “conjugal act”, referring specifically to sex in marriage, not “sexual intercourse” which covers any sex. Umnarried sexual intercourse is not a “conjugal act.”

The wording is important because sex should be performed ONLY in marriage, and therefore, Humanae Vitae (and the whole teaching on contraception) was written with married couples in mind.

Father, of course, should NEVER have made such an outrageous statement to an unmarried couple. He should have told them, in no uncertain terms to STOP having sex, period.

As for the gravity of sinfulness of contraception outside of marriage, the Church hasn’t made any definitive statements about this, because there really should be no sex outside of marriage in the first place. So the jury is actually still out on this one as to whether contraception outside of marriage adds to the sin of fornication or not.

My own opinion (and it remains just an opinion) is that Humanae Vitae does not apply to unmarried couples, because unmarried couples do not have the right to enter into the circumstances that allow contraception in the first place.

 

[ClaireS]

Re the possibly licit use of a non-abortifacient contraceptive in cases of rape, to my knowledge such contraceptive does not presenly exist but it would interest me to learn of one. As for the use of contraception by non married persons, many of them are already lying with their bodies because, unlike the married couples which HV addresses, they don’t intend a total mutual self-giving. In those cases, it seems to me that the use of a condom is intrinsically appropriate since it underscores that fact. For that reason, I can see why some theologians might think it may not be additionally sinful.

 

[Cristiano]

This is actually a mistranslation. The Latin has “conjugal act”, referring specifically to sex in marriage, not “sexual intercourse” which covers any sex. Umnarried sexual intercourse is not a “conjugal act.”

The wording is important because sex should be performed ONLY in marriage, and therefore, Humanae Vitae (and the whole teaching on contraception) was written with married couples in mind.

I think that you are wrong. Conjugal (from coniugum) act is not sex in marriage but an act of union (intercourse). It is often referred for sex in marriage because that is the only place where intercourse is deemed acceptable. The etymology of the words is important and we cannot just use what we consider a simply common usage. The English version of HV talks of “of the value of conjugal love in marriage” and the Latin version uses “etiam de amoris coniugum pretio in matrimonio”.

 

[Pug]

The English version of HV talks of “of the value of conjugal love in marriage” and the Latin version uses “etiam de amoris coniugum pretio in matrimonio”.

I don’t know why you give that quote from HV. I can love my spouse with more than one type of love. I can love him like a brother in Christ and I can love him with a love between spouses specifically. Are you saying that the only type of love between spouses is conjugal love? Are you saying that fornicators love each other with conjugal love?

Can you give some instances where Vatican documents use “conjugal relations” or “conjugal act” or something similar to describe fornication? I’m only familiar with its usage in the context of marriage.