What do we do when there are too many people on the planet?

[anon65111186]

How is Humanae Vitae infallible? It meets all the requirements

1. The Pope must speak as “the pastor and teacher of all Christians” - He says “To the venerable Patriarchs, Archbishops and Bishops and other local ordinaries in peace and communion with the Apostolic See, to priests, the faithful and to all men of good will”
2. It must be “doctrinam de fide vel moribus”–doctrine of faith or morals. It certainly is.
3. It must be proposed "“requiring to be held by the universal Church”. In HV it does this numerous times, the three practices proscribed (direct abortion, direct sterilization, and contraception) are all declared to be “absolutely excluded as licit means for regulating birth”
4. It is proclaimed “by a definitive act.” You can’t get more definitive than “In conformity with these landmarks in the human and Christian vision of marriage, we must once again declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun is to be absolutely rejected … Equally to be condemned, as the Church’s Magisterium has repeatedly taught, is direct sterilization, whether of men or of women, either permanent or temporary. Similarly to be rejected is any act which, in the anticipation or accomplishment of conjugal intercourse, or in the development of its natural results, intends-- whether as an end to be attained or as a means to be used–to impede procreation.”

The very name of the encyclical is laser focused “On rightly ordering the propagation of human offspring” It is definitive, and the situation it was given was a time of great confusion and controversy, when Catholics needed a definitive end all doubt definition.

 

[anon65111186]

A policy that blindly ignores a prime biological drive in the human species simply is not tenable. And I really do say that as charitably as I can.

Biological drives have the right to be satisfied? Do you really want to argue that? You are steering into a forest of error.

 

[Vonsalza]

Contraception and abortion, whether you like it or not, is in the same category - closed to life.

Your revealed desire to conflate them is irrelevant. They’re not the same. One ends a life conceived, the other prevents the conception of life - like NFP.

…a discrepancy by a few patristic witnesses does not harm the collective patristic testimony.

Not when we don’t want it to
But it shouldn’t matter. Your view is revealed as being rather fluid on this specific topic.

…the Didache… “You shall not practice birth control, you shall not murder a child by abortion, nor kill what is begotten”.

Interesting translation you have there.
Mine gives:
“thou shalt not use philtres; thou shalt not procure abortion, nor commit infanticide”

-with “philtres” being defined as “A drink supposed to arouse love and desire for a particular person in the drinker; a love potion.” per Oxford.

NFP does not render biologically impossible, there is no barrier, no element in NFP which disturbs the natural biology.

Quite. Your preferred method of NFP utilizes the “natural” collection of cervical mucus so that it may be analyzed to determine whether ovulation is occurring. As a backup, many women will (very intelligently) use “natural” ovulation tests that they purchased at the all-natural druggist.

Upon identifying when, exactly, she’ll ovulate, the couple keenly abstains from sex during her fertile periods and then participates in sex during periods where fertilization should be biologically impossible - and then orthodox Catholics proclaim this practice as actually being oriented toward life.

Some minds sense a possible contradiction there…

And then to add to the haze surrounding NFP, much of the ecclesial literature to be found on the subject suggests that it is meant as a temporary measure - not a permanent source of birth control. This, despite many Catholics seemingly disobediently using it as a source of permanent birth control.

So you might actually be right again. There seems to be a few things I don’t understand about NFP. You’re certainly not clarifying them, at any rate.

…the Pope painstakingly reaffirms that he is exercising the Authority of Christ.

It’s a “Christian thing”. You’ve invoked similar authority in your own writing above.

It still doesn’t change the answer to the question of whether encyclicals are infallible - which is “uncertain”. But you don’t need to belabor the point because I’m happy to concede they’re magisterial.

Biological drives have the right to be satisfied?

I don’t know if I have Christ (since you claim him), but I’m pretty sure I have Paul on my side…
1 Cor. 7:19 “But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”

 

[IWantGod]

The problem i have here, while i am not sure that i want to agree with Vonsalza, i don’t think it can be reasonably argued that sex without the potential for a child in any particular instance can be considered intrinsically evil, because sex can function as an expression of love and affection and an opportunity for bonding; which are all justified goods in themselves. Otherwise you couldn’t justify natural family planning which, lets face it, is another form of birth control, although it is considered a good kind of birth control.

 

[Vonsalza]

…while i am not sure that i want to agree with Vonsalza…

Good Lord, don’t.

Save yourself.

 

[anon65111186]

Not when we don’t want it to

But it shouldn’t matter. Your view is revealed as being rather fluid on this specific topic.

The only thing that does matter whether we want it to or not is if there is consensus of mind among the Fathers, and for contraception, there is consensus. Pretty much the highest authority in the Catholic faith, on top of that HV is infallible, unchangable and definite for all time, and is of the highest authority on Christ’s authority, as I feel the need to reaffirm constantly.

Interesting translation you have there.

Mine gives:

“thou shalt not use philtres; thou shalt not procure abortion, nor commit infanticide”

That’s one translation, if you know the background. οὐ φαρμακεύσεις ou pharmakeuseis is even translated as sorcery or potion. I studied Greek in undergrad and Plutarch mentions the pharmakeia in terms of contraception. It is a potion which contracepts, period. Everyone in the audience of the didache would be familiar with it, it is common greek and we derive a few words in English from it.

sex during periods where fertilization should be biologically impossible

Never impossible, that is where you misunderstand, it is always possible and that it the key point. To do NFP, you must only do it when there still exists a chance, a possibility that God can use to produce life.

You must recognize that for some couples, a lifetime of NFP is licit, since they fit the conditions. For me and my wife, we don’t always use it, just temporarily.

“But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”

That is still not license to burn with passion within marriage and contracept as a means to fulfill that burning, if you believe God cannot give continence to overcome your urges, then may I suggest you trust in God more.

Your view is revealed as being rather fluid on this specific topic.

I am learning always but I always take the Church’s position as best I know. And to the best of my knowledge, contraception is never permitted for married couples or even among unmarried couples. It is backed up with an authority and wisdom which is about as authoritative as you can get in Catholicism. That people (85% as you say) still balk at it puzzles me. They prefer their own opinions to that of Christ, thinking to themselves it is not of Christ but a teaching of men. Christ will judge on the last day, not me.

 

[anon65111186]

i don’t think it can be reasonably argued that sex without the potential for a child in any particular instance can be considered intrinsically evil

I would agree that it is not evil to have sex without the potential for a child absolutely, in accord with Humanae Vitae, which says as much. That is the groundwork of Natural Family Planning. Older couples and such may enjoy conjugal relations even though they are not fertile.

 

[Gorgias]

Isn’t the problem more one of “equitable distribution of food” and “maintenance of potable water sources” than it is of “too many people”?

 

[IWantGod]

I don’t think too many people need be interpreted as meaning there is not enough space. Not enough resources would be the major concern. And we seem to be having a hard enough time distributing resources as it is.

 

[normdplume]

You first.

 

[vz71]

A policy that blindly ignores a prime biological drive in the human species simply is not tenable. And I really do say that as charitably as I can.

I wonder why I don’t see everyone going at it in public.
After all, apparently humans are helpless to this ‘prime biological drive’

You speak like some hormone overdosed teenager that has been watching way too much t.v.

 

[IWantGod]

Trust me people are going at it every chance they can. People just don’t want to see it in public.

You will know when society has really gone down the pan when everybody is having sex in broad daylight.

 

[IWantGod]

A new Job has just been advertised from the moon base. They are looking for drilling and digging teams. Will involve a relocation of you and your family to the moon as you will need to be in driving distance.

 

[FrancisPio]

Move to Mars. Grow a potato farm.

 

[fisherman_carl]

The universe is very large. But I think the only place I would want to live is on earth. The ocean is one option if we needed it. Consider how much space there is on the ocean. But it is still a long way off before the population is too large. The human population could only grow so large anyways because it is limited by resources like food. When populations outgrew their food sources they traditionally emigrated or declared war. Either way you will see populations limited.

 

[Gorgias]

Not enough resources would be the major concern.

No. Not “not enough resources”, but rather “not enough available resources.” That’s a significant difference.

And we seem to be having a hard enough time distributing resources as it is.

Then fix the distribution systems. Birth control and abortion aren’t solutions for distribution problems.

 

[MichaelP3]

Although it has been flagged, I give a hand to this reply!

 

[Gorgias]

Although it has been flagged, I give a hand to this reply!

I disagree. Even if the solution were “have fewer babies” (and that itself is open to debate!), then “sterilization and [A]BC” aren’t the only potential courses of action other than “don’t have sex”!

 

[MichaelP3]

Uhmm…

I am however in favour of “not making assumptions and numerous other name calling”. I tried to search for the thread but you should remember where you went all out on me utterly uncharitable when I asked a mere question. It was something on Luther.

Anyway I prefer not to respond to you as I have experience where this is going.

Take care

 

[MichaelP3]

Sterilisation not. And knowing the poster I do know that was a tongue in cheek. If I actually put my thoughts to writing further on this subject… well maybe I should rather not.

Take care