K
kage_ar
Guest
Why would you assume the majority of the poster’s friends are contracpeting? Bit of a rash judgement there…
- Status
V
valient_Lucy
Guest
Don’t be too hard on yourself. In all likelihood, their parents are contracepting, and they have picked up these attitudes from their parents.
I’m going to get blasted now for assuming that their parents are contracepting, so let me add a few caveats.
1 I’m NOT saying that it is right for their parents to contracept.
2 I make this point because, realisticially speaking, a parent does have a lot more influence on a child’s sexual mores than a teacher the child sees once a week. Unfortunately, we all know parents who are not following the Church’s teachings on the subject, and while a good teacher can (and must!) present the Church’s teachings on the subject, it is unrealistic to expect the teacher to override the teachings of their parents.
3 While I think it’s important to try to give people the benefit of the doubt, the reality is that the Church’s teachings on contraception are very much misunderstood and rejected by the laity. Even Dr. Janet Smith says that the estimate that 4% of Catholic married couples use NFP is very optimistic.
P
PassingThru
Guest
Kage, get over it.
It is not rash. Everyone but you accepts that it is more common than not for people to contracept. So, I am making a basic assumption that his congregation follows this trend. Unless he is pre-screening his friends at Church, statistically, it is very, very unlikely that my statement is incorrect.
Now, knowing this, he is saying that 95% of the time that these people make love to their spouses, it is “devoid of love”.
I say something that is both mathematically conservative (my language implys a simple majority, when the truth is much greater %) and benign. This guy claims 95% of sex is “devoid of love” if they use ABC or are sterilized, and you think **I ** am making a “rash judgement”? Whatever.
And please, don’t go down your tired path of “practicing Catholics”. You tell me how many and who is in this category and we will discuss, but until then, I am not interested.
What I said is not a stretch by any measure. Care to tell everyone how they don’t love their spouses?
S
St_Francis
Guest
M
markomalley
Guest
First of all, here is Humanae Vitae at the Vatican website.
For the prophetic portion, you will probably want ilto look primarily at paragraph 17:
At their 1920 Lambeth Conference, they said the following in Resolution 68:
We utter an emphatic warning against the use of unnatural means for the avoidance of conception, together with the grave dangers - physical, moral and religious - thereby incurred, and against the evils with which the extension of such use threatens the race.
At the 1930 Lambeth Conference, they changed their position (Resolution 15):
…Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.
By 1958, Lambeth had gone as far as this (Resolution 115):
The Conference believes that the responsibility for deciding upon the number and frequency of children has been laid by God upon the consciences of parents everywhere; that this planning, in such ways as are mutually acceptable to husband and wife in Christian conscience, is a right and important factor in Christian family life and should be the result of positive choice before God.
If something is wrong in the area of moral theology, is it not always wrong?
For the prophetic portion, you will probably want ilto look primarily at paragraph 17:
Consequences of Artificial Methods
17. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.
Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.
One other point to bring up is that, prior to the 1930s, no Christian group supported the use of artificial contraception. The group that led the change was the Anglican Communion.17. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.
Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.
At their 1920 Lambeth Conference, they said the following in Resolution 68:
We utter an emphatic warning against the use of unnatural means for the avoidance of conception, together with the grave dangers - physical, moral and religious - thereby incurred, and against the evils with which the extension of such use threatens the race.
At the 1930 Lambeth Conference, they changed their position (Resolution 15):
…Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.
By 1958, Lambeth had gone as far as this (Resolution 115):
The Conference believes that the responsibility for deciding upon the number and frequency of children has been laid by God upon the consciences of parents everywhere; that this planning, in such ways as are mutually acceptable to husband and wife in Christian conscience, is a right and important factor in Christian family life and should be the result of positive choice before God.
If something is wrong in the area of moral theology, is it not always wrong?
G
gakroeger
Guest
???
What is the opposite of Christian slaughtering Christian?
Christian slaughtering Christian?
R
RobbyS
Guest
Not incidental is the fact that the condom was invented as a devise to help the whore avoid pregnancy, because that interferes with her trade. They were better than the abortficients used by madams, which threatened the lives of the girls – an age 30 whole was old, many died young. The john, of course, seldom wanted to father a child, and even more rarely, to take care of one. There is an inherent coldness about this sort of thing, and by introducing artificial means into the marriage bed. this kind of sucks the vitality out of the relationship between man and wife. A wife cannot be a madonna,although she can be a saint, and she cannot be a whore.
J
JimG
Guest
Dr. Janet Smith is a very good source on this.
Eighth Graders are old enough to read Humanae Vitae. And it is short enough that it ought to be studied by them.
They are too young to realize though, the societal situation before Humanae Vitae, and the degrading changes that have come about in our society through the widespread acceptance of artificial contraception. The instructor will have to explain to them what it was like then compared to now.
Two other things ought to be noted and taught:
1st. Up until 1930, the teaching of the Catholic Church against artificial contraception was pretty much identical to the teaching against contraception by every other Christian body. (Martin Luther considered it to be a worse sin than adultery.) It was not until 1930 than the Anglican Church broke ranks on the issue, deciding at the Lambeth Conference that year that artificial contraception could be approved for use by married couples who needed to use it for grave reasons.
2nd: The only question the commission was to study was whether or not the birth control pill–then a new thing–was to be considered as artificial contraception. It’s inventor had proposed that it should not fall within the Church’s ban on contraception because it worked by natural means. That view was not accepted. There was never a question of reversing the Church’s traditional teaching about the immorality of using artificial contraception.
I have to conclude that Paul VI really was preserved from error by the Holy Spirit in this case. He was not a particularly strong personality, and many secular forces were urging acceptance of the pill. But it is the holy father’s duty to affirm what the Church has always taught. The only question was to discern the nature of the new method.
The general failure to accept his guidance has had much adverse consequences for our society.
Finally, as to the social consequences, I recommend an article in the most recent issue of First Things magazine, which approaches the matter not from a moral but a sociological perspective: “Bitter Pill–A Cost Benefit Analysis of Contraception.” It is not yet available online.
T
turtle18
Guest
By the way, I am a woman, not a man.
So I will turn the the tables on you, if you think artificial contraception is so great, why are you afraid of trusting God and not having any children?
The bottom line there is a purpose to having sex. That is to create life AND to enjoy an intimate bond with your spouse. If natural conditions have occured (such as menopause) that prevent procreation, then it is okay to have sex just to enjoy an intimate bond with your spouse. But if you are in your fertile years and you refuse procreation, then you are indeed rejecting God’s will. And what are the reasons people don’t want kids? Probably financial (i.e. materialism) OR selfishness (you don’t want to spend the time it takes to raise kids).
I must say, as a Lutheran, you must support the desecration of the Bible, the Eucharist and God’s plan for human sexuality.
T
turtle18
Guest
And I have to say, ALL love is OPEN to Life. Whether it is the brother/sisterly love where we support the less fortunate and spiritually guide them. Or it is marital love when we are open to actually creating physical life. Which ALL Catholics promise they will do when they make their sacramental marriage vows. There are so many different types of love but we have to be open to life in all of them. If you are married, you have chosen to be open to physical life. Artificial birth control rejects this type of love.
By the way, only people who feel guilty about what they are resort to calling other people judgemental.
It is a defense people who live in sin use all the time to justify what they are doing. Do you have any idea what it truly means to judge someone? Telling someone what is right and preaching the truth is not judgmentalism. Christ was crucified for preaching the truth. I am sure there are many people in His day who thought he was being “judgemental.” Ironic, of course because He will be the final judge.
Guilt is not a bad thing–you should be thankful for it because it is God letting us know we have done something wrong. And only God can wash away that guilt through His forgiveness.
By the way, only people who feel guilty about what they are resort to calling other people judgemental.
It is a defense people who live in sin use all the time to justify what they are doing. Do you have any idea what it truly means to judge someone? Telling someone what is right and preaching the truth is not judgmentalism. Christ was crucified for preaching the truth. I am sure there are many people in His day who thought he was being “judgemental.” Ironic, of course because He will be the final judge.Guilt is not a bad thing–you should be thankful for it because it is God letting us know we have done something wrong. And only God can wash away that guilt through His forgiveness.
K
kage_ar
Guest
I’ve stated who is a practicing Catholic about a zillion times, those who keep the Precepts of the Church.
I am sure all your Lutheranish friends contracept like sterile bunnies. You are not Catholic, frankly, you cannot understand what it means to follow His Church.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
please read it today if you plan to continue teaching this topic
please tell me you did not present it to your class the way the title states, but rather that you taught them Pope Paul affirmed unchanging Catholic teaching for 2000 years in this encyclical. Had you read it, you would not have been in difficulty explaining its doctrine. Should you want to read a synopsis, try Janet Smith’s Why HV was Right.
K
KyivAndrew
Guest
Well, that was before my time, but I know, from the history of my country Canada, we had the complicating matter of The Winnipeg Statement which is the Canadian Bishops’ Statement on the Encyclical Humanae Vitae from a Plenary Assembly held at Saint Boniface in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Published on September 27, 1968, it is the Canadian Bishop’s controversial document about Pope Paul VI’s July 1968 encyclical on human life and the regulation of birth. I’m having problems finding the text per se, so I just link to the wikipedia entry. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnipeg_Statement
I know petitions were being made as late as 2007 to have the Winnipeg Statement retracted as here: gopetition.com/petitions/retract-the-winnipeg-statement.html This seems to have resulted in the following Canadian Conference of Bishops pastoral letter cccb.ca/site/content/view/2636/1214/lang,eng/ which, when you read, please click the blue pastoral letter link therein that document to read its contents. Obviously, as the Winnipeg Statement shows, some Catholic hierarchy had some difficulties in accepting.
In any event, my apologies as this is tangent to the question of how the OP approaches her catechism class in explaining Humanae Vitae, which I hope went off successfully.
P
PassingThru
Guest
Please read my post. I never said anything of the sort. I specifically said none of this has any bearing on the validity of Catholic Teaching. Stop insinuating something I did not say.
This is all well and good. If I understand Catholic Teaching correctly, it is NOT a sin to avoid conception for valid reasons. Is this not correct? I never disputed any of this, so I do not know why you are bringing this up. If you believe ABC is wrong, I have no problems with that. And again, this is not what I was responding to, and you know that.
Holy Cow! What is all this about?
In summary, you made a pretty bold, and in my opinion, un-called for assertion that people who contracept have sex that is “devoid of love”. I was trying to put this into perspective by asking if you would tell all these people to their faces that “Hey Bob and Jane, for the last 20 years of marriage, every time you slept with your better half, it was devoid of love. See you next week!” I think that is pretty presumptuous. But, if that is how you feel, and you think I am being out of line, fine. I have no disagreements with the tenets of the Church. Is your “devoid of love” assertion a part of this teaching? I took it to be your personal judgment. Please advise me if I am mistaken.
P
PassingThru
Guest
I think you need to re-read. You made the “devoid of love” claim, that in essence made a pretty bold assertion about a good many of your fellow Catholics. Again, you made the assertion, not me. I only pointed out if you would be so bold with all these people you know to their faces. Everything I said was in reference to YOUR assertion. I put my “example” at the end as an intentionally misguided example, which was made clear.By the way, only people who feel guilty about what they are resort to calling other people judgemental.
Guilt is not a bad thing–you should be thankful for it because it is God letting us know we have done something wrong. And only God can wash away that guilt through His forgiveness.
Again, where am I judging anyone? You made the claim, and then went on your Lutheran rant. What do I have to feel guilty about? If you feel all these people, Catholics included, are “devoid of love”, fine. How is that me judging anyone?
P
PassingThru
Guest
You are avoiding the issue.
Where did I make a “rash judgment”? Can you walk me through your logic as to how I am incorrect? Regardless, I was using “friends” in a non-literal fashion.
Do you support this “devoid of love” claim? Explain how it is not a judgmental statement.
Whats with the “Lutheran bunnies” business? Somehow you are mixing in my understanding of what it means to be Catholic with a statistic. Your passion for your beliefs is not relevant to whether someone uses a condom or pill, or the rate of such usage in a population.
And its not really the point. I thought the statement was out and out wrong. What are your thoughts?
S
Seatuck
Guest
The devoid of love comment is only properly understood in the context of sacramental understanding. Yes, there is the love that is understood on a secular level but we as Catholics and all people really are called to rise higher. Marital love is intended to be a reflection of the fully giving, fully generative love of the Trinity. The father and son love and this love proceeds from them perpetually in such a way as to create the 3rd person of the Trinity which we call the Holy Spirit.
Catholic Moral theologians have taught that contraceptive love is not marital love at all especially in a sacramental sense.
P
PassingThru
Guest
I should take my own advice and re-read my posts!
I did open by saying it was judgmental, but, I stand by that.
To make a statement:
“95% of (insert group) is (insert disparaging statement)” is almost by definition a judgment of a group. Let alone when the assertion is based on how they are, or think, spiritually. And then to say it is NOT a judgment because it is “the truth” is just a self serving argument. Any statement would therefore not be judgmental if you feel it is the truth. So I can say any blanket statement I wish, as long as it is, to me, the truth.
I did open by saying it was judgmental, but, I stand by that.
To make a statement:
“95% of (insert group) is (insert disparaging statement)” is almost by definition a judgment of a group. Let alone when the assertion is based on how they are, or think, spiritually. And then to say it is NOT a judgment because it is “the truth” is just a self serving argument. Any statement would therefore not be judgmental if you feel it is the truth. So I can say any blanket statement I wish, as long as it is, to me, the truth.
P
PassingThru
Guest
This I can understand. To say that contracepted sex is “devoid of sacramental love”, by Catholic teaching, makes sense.
Maybe it is just the semantics. Saying instead “devoid of real love” implies something entirely different, to me. It is similar to a difference in beliefs between a Catholic and a Protestant. There are plenty of topics to have disagreements on and make statements that encompass these differences in a rational way. But I would never say “Catholics do not believe in the real Jesus” because, of course, that is a broad, misguided statement. I could say something about how we believe differently without making such a rash proclamation on an entire group.
S
Seatuck
Guest
I can see why you see it that way. We see that type of love as a “counterfeit love”. Not “real” in that sense.
I’m sure you have seen the recommendations to study Theology of the Body . One of the many Christopher West’s studies will do if you don’t want to get into the original audiences by the Pope. He does a good job of explaining why contraceptive sex is not marital at all.
- Status