Humanae Vitae Question

  • Thread starter Thread starter BruceK
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B]Here’s the latest installment of my debate with my protagonsist on the issue of HV and Caontraception
:

Him(Protagonist): it is the intention of the NFP practitioners that their practice 100% exclude procreation. The fact that NFP is not 100% effective is irrelevant. <<

Yeah, except when the NFP practitioner’s intention is to 100% include procreation. I think that NFP is learned and practiced in my area (NE, Pope Paul VI Institue, Creighton Method) in order to help people deal with infertility issues and to GET THEM PREGNANT far more than to avoid a pregnancy.

So if ABC and NFP are essentially the same, how come a condom can’t help me get pregnant?
 
**Here’s the latest exchange I’ve had with him on this issue, his words are as follows:**Do you deny that the Church teaches that if a married couple intentionally uses NFP to exclude procreation for the life of their marriage, then their “doing nothing” was immoral? Yes or No.
**So what would be the best reply to this?🤷 **
He’s trying to trap you into saying this, which is what I almost just said to you, then saw the trap:
“For the life of their marriage” could mean many things, could you ask him to elaborate? Actually, don’t. Although the Church does teach that there are reasons to use NFP that are NOT justifiable (hey I really want that new car), it also teaches that there are PLENTY of reasons that definitely are justifiable.
Then he’ll say that NFP can be abused and therefore it can be wrong and therefore it’s contraception. Where he will be wrong is that in the abuse of NFP the immoral act is not contraception, although it is still an abuse. Using NFP immorally is against God’s will, and putting the couple’s will above His, but this doesn’t make NFP contraception.
 
I recently got into this debate with this person who I will call Sub,he was having a discussion with another person about moral relativism and homosexuality in which he stated:
The question was brought up:
Is “morality relative”?? <<
SUB >> Yes. It is relative to the basis by which one judges morality. <<

There are two aspects to arriving at a moral norm. The first is the funadmantal reality or truth on which a moral norm is based; the second is the soundness of the argument by which one proceeds from an absolute truth to a moral norm (conclusion).

If one assesses the morality of gay marriage from the perspective of Christ’s commandment to love your neighbor as yourself, and the fact that some individuals are born gay and therefore loving someone of the same sex is natural, one could perhaps construct an argument for the morality of gay marriage.

If one assesses the morality of gay marriage from the perspective of the role of marriage and sexual intercourse in the propagation of the species, enlightened by Scriptural prohibition of homosexual intercourse, one can construct an argument against the morality of gay marriage.

To which I stated: **Ultimately what’s the difference between sterilized heterosexuality and homosexual sex? Nothing – for both disjoin procreation from sexual expression. << **Sub replies:
NFP also disjoins (excludes) procreation from sexual expression (see JPII L&R pg 235), with the Vatican’s sanction. If there were something immoral about disjoining procreation from sexual expression, the Vatican would condemn NFP. The difference between “sterilized heterosexuality” and homosexual sex is fundamental to the issue of conjugal morality. God created humans so that sexual intercourse serves two separate ends: procreation and unification. He obviously did not will that the two ends be “inseparably connected”. But both ends are proximate ends to the ultimate end of the sexual urge - the propagation of the human species. (See JPII, L&R pg 51) Both proximate ends derive their morality from the fact that they are both intrinsic elements of the ultimate end. The pursuit of “unification” to the exclusion of “procreation” (e.g. NFP) is justified in so far as it serves the ultimate end of the sexual urge - the propagation of the species. Homosexual sex, however, does not serve the ultimate end of the sexual urge. It is not “ordered to” the ultimate end. It cannot be justified on the basis of God’s will as expressed through His creation of humans. It is immoral because it conflicts with God’s will as best we can know it from the perspective that I have outlined.>

So what would the best reply or rebuttal to his ‘argument’? 🤷
 
**I’ve been having this ongoing debate on the issue of contraception with this person whom I will call Sub. He is somewhow not convinced that the practice of artificial birth control(ABC) is immoral. The exchange as follows: **

Me: One method is harmful; the other is healthy. One works with nature; one works against nature. It’s a similar case with NFP and ABC, but we as a society, are often blinded to the unnatural and harmful effects of ABC. <<

Sub: You have presented no credible argument that NFP works with nature whereas ABC works against nautre. Absent that your example is meaningless. In fact, both NFP and ABC interfere with nature is certain ways. But, you have presented no credible argument that it is immoral to interfere with nature. Why doesn’t the Church condemn circumcistion, breast enhancement, implanting pig valves in human hearts, etc. if it is immoral to interfere with nature?

ME >> Practicing NFP is radically different from using ABC, and everybody know it - deep down-inside he you know it. <<

Sub: True, Practicing NFP is radically different from using ABC. No one denies that. The question is, “is using ABC immoral?”.

**What would be the best compelling argument for the immorality of ABC? **
 
Sub: You have presented no credible argument that NFP works with nature whereas ABC works against nautre. Absent that your example is meaningless. In fact, both NFP and ABC interfere with nature is certain ways. But, you have presented no credible argument that it is immoral to interfere with nature. Why doesn’t the Church condemn circumcistion, breast enhancement, implanting pig valves in human hearts, etc. if it is immoral to interfere with nature?
Janet Smith addresses this issue in Artificial vs. Natural?:

The Church approves of what is artificial when it facilitates nature and disapproves of it when it violates nature. The distinction between facilitating nature and violating nature is key – “artificial” forms of contraception violate nature. So do some natural means that have historically been used as contraceptives, such as seaweed and natural sponges; these too fall under the condemnation of the Church.

The natural law upon which the Church much of its moral teaching has a very specific understanding of “nature” that unfortunately eludes many. **The “nature” referred to in “natural law” is not biological nature but the nature of the human being; our nature as a rational, free, and relational creatures. **Acts that violate the rational free, and relational nature of the human being are thereby immoral . . . .

 
Let’s review:

1960 The Pill

1966 The radical and divisive National Organization for Women is founded. Co-founder, Betty Friedan, called the family “a comfortable concentration camp.”

1968 Humanae Vitae is published. Birth control pill manufactureres need to move product and it would be bad for sales if women listened to the Pope.

Send in the Hippies with the following: Free Love! Sex with anyone. Down with the Establishment! Down with the established order. Don’t trust anyone over 30! Mom, dad, priests, nuns, they don’t know anything. Woodstock Nation! Which never materializes.

A few dissident priests signed a letter of protest against Humanae Vitae. At least one has come to regret that decision.

1970s Lawyers and judges make graphic pornography legal and Adult Bookstores appear. Topless bars and strip clubs appear.

The Supreme Court legalizes abortion.

By nonscientific vote, Homosexuality is removed as a disorder from the Diagnostic and Statiscal Manual.

1980s Porn on cable and Motels. It’s designed to be beyond the reach of the FCC.

No-Fault Divorce.

It took a few decades, but outside forces undermined the family. Through judges and lawyers, not the majority will of the people, we went from those words you can’t say on TV to all those words today.

In a few decades, we went from civilized behavior to portrayals of dysfunctional behavior on TV. To the end of romance and marriage in movies, to meaningless ‘just sex.’

The family had to be torn apart.

Abortion is not here because of Catholics but the Supreme Court.
Porn is not here because of Catholics but due to the actions of some judges and some lawyers.
No-Fault Divorce was not made law by Catholics, but it did make it a bit quicker to break up a family. And lawyers made some money.

Wake up, my brothers and sisters in Christ. All of this stuff was not legalized by you and me.

Finally, I had a Hippie friend who acted as if he had just left Hippie Boot Camp. He had regulation long hair, regulation jeans and smoked regulation dope. He had all the phrases down perfectly. “I don’t need no piece of paper to live with my old lady.” Marriage didn’t matter. And fornication? “They’re just performing ‘natural acts.’”

The manufacturers of The Pill had to move product.

Peace,
Ed
 
Sub: True, Practicing NFP is radically different from using ABC. No one denies that. The question is, “is using ABC immoral?”.

**What would be the best compelling argument for the immorality of ABC? **
I would not use the term “ABC”, first of all, because of the problems with the concept of artificiality (see Janet Smith’s “Artificial vs. Natural?”.). Contraception is a better term.

In any case, the term used must best express what is meant by what the Church teaches:

[T]here must be a rejection of all acts that attempt to impede procreation, both those chosen as means to an end and those chosen as ends. This includes acts that precede intercourse, acts that accompany intercourse, and acts that are directed to the natural consequences of intercourse. (Humanae Vitae 14).​

"[E]very action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil. (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2370)​

The best argument. Good question.

One possible approach: Acts that attempt to impede procreation falsify the procreative meaning inherent in the conjugal act.

NFP doesn’t have this problem since no attempt is made to impede procreation. The procreative meaning is present as long the exchange of male gift and female receptivity is maintained in its integrity.
 
To which I stated: **Ultimately what’s the difference between sterilized heterosexuality and homosexual sex? Nothing – for both disjoin procreation from sexual expression. << **Sub replies:
NFP also disjoins (excludes) procreation from sexual expression (see JPII L&R pg 235), with the Vatican’s sanction. If there were something immoral about disjoining procreation from sexual expression, the Vatican would condemn NFP. The difference between “sterilized heterosexuality” and homosexual sex is fundamental to the issue of conjugal morality. God created humans so that sexual intercourse serves two separate ends: procreation and unification. He obviously did not will that the two ends be “inseparably connected”. But both ends are proximate ends to the ultimate end of the sexual urge - the propagation of the human species. (See JPII, L&R pg 51) Both proximate ends derive their morality from the fact that they are both intrinsic elements of the ultimate end. The pursuit of “unification” to the exclusion of “procreation” (e.g. NFP) is justified in so far as it serves the ultimate end of the sexual urge - the propagation of the species.>>
A reading of Humanae Vitae shows that what’s inseparably connected is the procreative and unitive meanings inherent in the marital act. Moreover, the encyclical states that it is necessary that each marital act remain ordained in itself to the procreating of human life.

NFP maintains both the procreative meaning and the ordination of the marital act to the procreating of human life, even through the ovulation cycle renders the marital act non-generative in effect for the majority of the cycle:

INDENToth the fertile and infertile acts of marital intercourse are procreative, because both, under the right conditions, are acts in fulfillment of a natural tendency. This tendency, as constitutive of human nature, does not and cannot retreat during the infertile period of the ovulation cycle, postmenopause, and infertility.

The Conjugal Act: “Open” to Procreation?”[/INDENT]
 
Everybody’s been stuck on HV since the '60’s.

It’s as if people are searching for the right microscope to focus on what is wrong with birth control, instead of thinking about what “birth control” is, and that it is evil, in itself.

The Jewish commentary on scripture points out the first command in the Bible, to be fruitful and multiply. Can we all live up to this command? Have we pushed God “back” on this command?

Another Jewish perspective on scripture is that our bodies belong to God. We don’t have the right to abuse it or to subvert it, as we would want to.

Yes, I’ll say the obvious. Think of all the people who won’t be born, won’t be saved, and won’t enjoy eternal life. Why would we ever want to stop all that? For nothing less than selfish reasons.
 
BruceK
Anyone wishing to discuss Humanae Vitae should study the question before expecting to discuss contraception and Catholic doctrine.

You have been presented with several articles and books – one of the best is *Why Humane Vitae Was Right *edited by Dr Janet Smith, Ignatius 1993. If you do your homework you should be able to chose your ground and defend it.

Some facts:
“One could also identify the natural moral law with human reason, insofar as it naturally apprehends those basic moral truths (cf. CCC 1955). In any case, the natural moral law provides an objective standard by which to determine what is right and wrong. Choices that respect every fundamental human good are morally right; choices that violate or unduly neglect a basic human good are morally wrong.” Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine, (CD) Our Sunday Visitor].

God’s natural moral law intends intercourse for the procreation of children – any use of this while at the same time putting a barrier (physical, chemical) against procreation is a lie concerning the act, as it frustrates the primary purpose of the act.

Using contraception, a couple is intentionally separating the love-giving aspect of sex from the life-giving aspect of sex. That is the reason why contraception is immoral unless it maintains this integral link. Natural Birth Regulation (NBR) is moral, when employed for serious reasons, because it respects and maintains the link.

Those who are past child bearing age, are infertile, or have had hysterectomies engage in moral sexual intercourse because what is moral is the intention and moral action – no human barrier is placed to thwart the act. Withdrawal is using intercourse for stimulation and then refusing to cooperate with God by flunking out – akin to masturbation.

Since contraception means “birth control by the use of devices (diaphragm or intrauterine device or condom) or drugs or surgery” it is not logical to interpret NBR as against conception, since neither the teachers nor the Church’s teaching permit it’s use as an alternative to the mindset that uses contraceptive methods as routine in and out of marriage to thwart the ends of procreation.

The use of aids such as thermometers or ovulation tapes, employs mankind’s God-given reason and laws of physics and chemistry (known by reason and experiment) to cooperate with Him in His providence.
 
Let’s review:

1960 The Pill

1966 The radical and divisive National Organization for Women is founded. Co-founder, Betty Friedan, called the family “a comfortable concentration camp.”

1968 Humanae Vitae is published. Birth control pill manufactureres need to move product and it would be bad for sales if women listened to the Pope.

Send in the Hippies with the following: Free Love! Sex with anyone. Down with the Establishment! Down with the established order. Don’t trust anyone over 30! Mom, dad, priests, nuns, they don’t know anything. Woodstock Nation! Which never materializes.

A few dissident priests signed a letter of protest against Humanae Vitae. At least one has come to regret that decision.

1970s Lawyers and judges make graphic pornography legal and Adult Bookstores appear. Topless bars and strip clubs appear.

The Supreme Court legalizes abortion.

By nonscientific vote, Homosexuality is removed as a disorder from the Diagnostic and Statiscal Manual.

1980s Porn on cable and Motels. It’s designed to be beyond the reach of the FCC.

No-Fault Divorce.

It took a few decades, but outside forces undermined the family. Through judges and lawyers, not the majority will of the people, we went from those words you can’t say on TV to all those words today.

In a few decades, we went from civilized behavior to portrayals of dysfunctional behavior on TV. To the end of romance and marriage in movies, to meaningless ‘just sex.’

The family had to be torn apart.

Abortion is not here because of Catholics but the Supreme Court.
Porn is not here because of Catholics but due to the actions of some judges and some lawyers.
No-Fault Divorce was not made law by Catholics, but it did make it a bit quicker to break up a family. And lawyers made some money.

Wake up, my brothers and sisters in Christ. All of this stuff was not legalized by you and me.

Finally, I had a Hippie friend who acted as if he had just left Hippie Boot Camp. He had regulation long hair, regulation jeans and smoked regulation dope. He had all the phrases down perfectly. “I don’t need no piece of paper to live with my old lady.” Marriage didn’t matter. And fornication? “They’re just performing ‘natural acts.’”

The manufacturers of The Pill had to move product.

Peace,
Ed
👍
Great post! Its sad that this thread title has a thumbs down icon beside it.
Then again how often in 42 years since 1968 have priest broached the encyclical Humanae Vitae from the Ambo to faithful Catholics? Or was it that to many Catholics through pride didn’t want to listen, and priests were afraid that their pews would be empty if they preached and enforced the encyclical on the faithful? And now today its no damned wonder morality has gone to hell in society. So who takes the blame? Regrettably if were all honest and humble about it we all do.
 
👍
Great post! Its sad that this thread title has a thumbs down icon beside it.
**Oh! My bad! When I initiated this thread back in August 08 I mistaken that icon for a ?. :o Now that I’m thinking about it, it does seem apt as it does sadly reflect the attitude of many Catholics toward contraception. **🤷
 
👍
Great post! Its sad that this thread title has a thumbs down icon beside it.
Then again how often in 42 years since 1968 have priest broached the encyclical Humanae Vitae from the Ambo to faithful Catholics? Or was it that to many Catholics through pride didn’t want to listen, and priests were afraid that their pews would be empty if they preached and enforced the encyclical on the faithful? And now today its no damned wonder morality has gone to hell in society. So who takes the blame? Regrettably if were all honest and humble about it we all do.
To answer your question. Some of my fellow Catholics at the time believed The Pill would be great. No more worrying about condoms, right? Condoms can fail, even today.

And Playboy needed the Playboy Philosophy and all those other articles, to be considered a ‘serious’ intellectual alternative to what us Catholics were doing: no sex before marriage and the primary purpose of marriage being kids. They also insisted we Catholics hated sex to the point that they called us sexually repressed. We weren’t. We were doing what all cultures had done for thousands of years: chose our spouse, got married, had kids, and yes, enjoyed ourselves in the process. Their accusations were false. Mr. Hefner was promoting hedonism, that’s it.

Today, they just print pictures of naked people. Back then, the radicals, dissidents and anarchists had to have a respectable front to hide behind. To make it appear they had serious, valid reasons for suggesting their alternative lifestyles. In the late 1960s, the fine artists I knew kept arguing that real stories required a little "tasteful’ nudity but only for the sake of the story. I bought that baloney. I, and others, actually thought there was some high-falutin’ reason for all of those creative people to introduce more sexuality in their serious literature, film or other media.

By the time graphic porn appeared in the 1970s, there was no more need for serious articles. The masks had come off. How much great art and literature has been produced by the porn industry since then?

Acording to the latest issue of Our Sunday Visitor, Lust is the number one sin and porn the biggest problem facing Catholics and non-Catholics. The addiction to it has broken up marriages, other relationships and reduced job performance. The article concludes that some prefer porn to having a real relationship with another human being.

Humanae Vitae warned about increased promiscuity if people didn’t listen. The Hippie pagan evangelists showed up in our neighborhoods at just the right time to offer us ‘freedom’ from what we believed in, and we were too naive and too stupid to not listen to them. Our beliefs told us to welcome the stranger.

I think too many Catholics today, because they had accepted No-Fault Divorce, and had a legal abortion or two, are too fearful to return to the Church. A Catholic friend of mine told me this about annulments after her second marriage, “I’m not getting an annulment. If I do, my kids will be bastards.” You see?

Nothing changed from the pulpits. I kept going to Church. It was the outside, walking and talking bad examples, in the form of Hippies and Women’s Libbers, who said, “Try it, our way, you’ll like it better.” In the late 1960s and 1970s, we Catholics were still too trusting of experts and others because we believed them. Our sincere trust and compassion were taken advantage of. And yes, some of us chose to do the wrong thing, and suffered for it.

Peace,
Ed
 
**This deals directly with Humanae Vitae. My antagonist whom I’ve been having this ongoing debate with states that HV is self-contradictory. He base this on paragraphs 11 and 12; his premise is as follows: **
Hv11 says that each and every conjugal act must be open to procreation.
But, God created human sexuality so that each and every conjugal act is not open to procreation.
Therefore HV11 contradicts God’s will a revealed through His creation of human sexuality. HV11 rejects God’s will so known.

HV12 states that the “inseparable connection” between the two ends of conjugal intercourse is God’s will.

But God crerated human sexuality so that the two ends of conjugal intercourse are not “inseparately connected”; God separated the two ends of conjugal intercourse when he created human sexuality.

Therefore, HV12’s claim that the “inseparable connection” is God’s will is false. It is a rejection of God’s will as revealed through His creation of Human sexuality

**So I ask you what specifically is faulty with his reasoning, logic and his reading of HV? **
 
Just a couple of comments:
Contraception made the sexual revolution possible. Sex without consequences requires contraception.

Yes, condoms generally. The advent of the pill meant that responsibility could be shifted from men to women, and that men could no longer be held responsible for contraceptive failure. Women would be the ones to accept the risks of long term use of oral contraceptives.

And men would be inclined to no longer accept responsibility for pregnancies, wives or children. Not only that, by making women more ‘available’ they began to lose respect for women, just as HV predicted.
The Birth Control Pill was approved by the FDA in 1960. It was not widely available until 1967 in the United States (consider that the majority of the population lived on farms). The “Sexual Revolution” was made possible by a small group of lawyers, judges and organized crime. A preplanned Sex Addiction Culture was created by changing laws and legalizing things no Christian would ever approve of. The defense these people used included the First Amendment, with emphasis on “freedom of expression.”

It was not enough to just have The Pill. Oh no, the culture had to be conditioned to view Actual Graphic Non-Marital Sex which created a large number of porn and sex addicts.

1969 Bob, Carol, Ted And Alice - a movie about wife swapping.

1970s Adult Bookstores everywhere. Topless bars and strip clubs everywhere. Swinger magazines appear that contain ads for people looking for non-marital sex.

1973 Abortion legalized (based on penumbras in the Constitution). Homosexuality removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual through the efforts of gay activists.

Everything we have today is based on that. All of it. If you dare complain about porn, you are accused of censorship - a secular mortal sin.

Today, without knowledge of how it all started, too many kids think it is average or normal. It certainly is not. But it gained a foothold. Why? Too many people, at the time, thought because it was legal, it was somehow OK, or at least that was their justification for buying pictures of prostitutes.

God bless,
Ed
 
BruceK
This deals directly with Humanae Vitae. My antagonist whom I’ve been having this ongoing debate with states that HV is self-contradictory. He base this on paragraphs 11 and 12; his premise is as follows:
Hv11 says that each and every conjugal act must be open to procreation.
But, God created human sexuality so that each and every conjugal act is not open to procreation.
Therefore HV11 contradicts God’s will a revealed through His creation of human sexuality. HV11 rejects God’s will so known.
HV12 states that the “inseparable connection” between the two ends of conjugal intercourse is God’s will.
But God crerated human sexuality so that the two ends of conjugal intercourse are not “inseparately connected”; God separated the two ends of conjugal intercourse when he created human sexuality.
Therefore, HV12’s claim that the “inseparable connection” is God’s will is false. It is a rejection of God’s will as revealed through His creation of Human sexuality
So I ask you what specifically is faulty with his reasoning, logic and his reading of HV?
He is wrong on both counts:
In HV 11, the Holy Father is affirming that there must not be any action by either of the married couple to deliberately impede the end of procreation in each conjugal act – that is God’s Will. God has not commanded anywhere that the marital act should not be performed when a woman is infertile, through natural rhythms, age etc.

In HV 12, mankind may not deliberately separate the unitive from the procreative ends of marriage. This is the same error of the antagonist of trying to impose his own interpretation on us, and the reason is the same as above.

The same God who created us redeemed us through Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, who gave us His Church precisely to teach us all truth, and the reasoning in H.V. is correct. The “inseparable connection” is directed to the will of mankind which must not so separate the two ends of the marital act.
 
**Here’s the latest exchange I’ve been having with this supporter of contraception and his moral justification of such. My words are in bold: **
[BMe: ]how is it possibly moral to thwart the transmission of life by artificial gadgets, surgical alteration, or the pill? <<

My Protagonist: <It is moral to artificially thwart the transmission of life because doing so violates no moral principle. ABC like NFP cooperates with God’s will as revealed through His creation of human sexuality.>

**What is flawed about his argument and what would be the best rebuttal of such? **
 
BruceK
How do I answer?
It is moral to artificially thwart the transmission of life because doing so violates no moral principle. ABC like NFP cooperates with God’s will as revealed through His creation of human sexuality.
Ask who dictates to him what his moral principles are?

For you:
Post #31: Using contraception, a couple is intentionally separating the love-giving aspect of sex from the life-giving aspect of sex. That is the reason why contraception is immoral unless it maintains this integral link. Natural Birth Regulation (NBR) is moral, when employed for serious reasons, because it respects and maintains the link.

As each and every action is open to procreation in non-contraceptive intercourse, using NBR merely allows God’s will to operate as He has provided our human nature with infertile periods and has not commanded otherwise. To NBR always without the necessary grave reason would be objectively gravely morally wrong.

Similarly to deliberately humanly place a barrier (physical, chemical) against procreation is a lie concerning the act, as it frustrates the primary purpose of the act.

Consider this:
**Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on June 19, 2006 (Eternal Word television Network (EWTN): **
“If you want an objective reason as to why contraception is a serious evil and NFP is not only morally justifiable but also praiseworthy, that objective reason is this: with contraception, there is the deliberate rupture of the intimate link between the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act. With NFP, there is no such rupture. Even in the case in which a couple, using NFP, resorts to the infertile period for marital relations so as to avoid pregnancy (assuming for the sake of argument, for serious reasons) there is no such objective rupture of that link precisely because there is nothing there to contracept. You need to understand that morality is not simply about results. It is also about our actions in and of themselves. The argument to which you refer (the results are the same with NFP and contraception) is purely utilitarian and does not take into consideration the entire human act. Furthermore, as I have pointed out several times, the condoning of contraception quite logically is also the condoning of genital activity with anyone or anything, as well as of in vitro fertilization and cloning. The Church’s teaching on contraception does not at all depend on faith. It is a clear and rational defense of the very essence of civilization.”
[Fr Torraco is the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church (SSMTC), and answers questions for Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network].

What religion if any is your antagonist?
What articles and books are you using?
 
BruceK
How do I answer?

Ask who dictates to him what his moral principles are?

For you:
Post #31: Using contraception, a couple is intentionally separating the love-giving aspect of sex from the life-giving aspect of sex. That is the reason why contraception is immoral unless it maintains this integral link. Natural Birth Regulation (NBR) is moral, when employed for serious reasons, because it respects and maintains the link.

As each and every action is open to procreation in non-contraceptive intercourse, using NBR merely allows God’s will to operate as He has provided our human nature with infertile periods and has not commanded otherwise. To NBR always without the necessary grave reason would be objectively gravely morally wrong.

Similarly to deliberately humanly place a barrier (physical, chemical) against procreation is a lie concerning the act, as it frustrates the primary purpose of the act.

Consider this:
**Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on June 19, 2006 (Eternal Word television Network (EWTN): **
“If you want an objective reason as to why contraception is a serious evil and NFP is not only morally justifiable but also praiseworthy, that objective reason is this: with contraception, there is the deliberate rupture of the intimate link between the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act. With NFP, there is no such rupture. Even in the case in which a couple, using NFP, resorts to the infertile period for marital relations so as to avoid pregnancy (assuming for the sake of argument, for serious reasons) there is no such objective rupture of that link precisely because there is nothing there to contracept. You need to understand that morality is not simply about results. It is also about our actions in and of themselves. The argument to which you refer (the results are the same with NFP and contraception) is purely utilitarian and does not take into consideration the entire human act. Furthermore, as I have pointed out several times, the condoning of contraception quite logically is also the condoning of genital activity with anyone or anything, as well as of in vitro fertilization and cloning. The Church’s teaching on contraception does not at all depend on faith. It is a clear and rational defense of the very essence of civilization.”
[Fr Torraco is the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church (SSMTC), and answers questions for Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network].

What religion if any is your antagonist?
What articles and books are you using?
**He is a “cafeteria Catholic” The books and articles I use are the orhtodox ones, e.g. William May, John Finnis, JPII, Chris West and etc…
The authors he refers to are John Noonan, Thomas Burch, Charles Curran and the book *Turning Point * by Robert McClory. ****
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top