Why Do Most Catholics Ignore Humane Vitae?

[Abu]

HOLY POOH FAN#186
I have had more education and experience as a Catholic professor and counselor than you coulod ever have
Nuance is key to some particular ansewers, thie reply to this man’s specific comment was not nuanced.

Bragging is hot air –stick to facts.

Further everything directed to dissenting braggart Kalbertone is relevant. For those similarly unfamiliar with Christ and jolting the laggards as well, no one should be embarrassed by Christ except dissenters – the Christ-like manner:
to His own Apostles, “whom He loved to the end” Jesus exclaimed: “Have you no sense, no wits, are your hearts dulled, can’t you see, your ears hear, don’t you remember?” (Mk 8:17-18) (Frank Sheed, Christ In Eclipse, Sheed & Ward 1978, p 42). "With individuals He was very much the doctor with a duty not only to tell them what was wrong with them, but to make sure they realized it.” (Ibid. p 40-41).

Mojoala #191
His Humane Vitae truely Doctrine or is it just Dogma?

Such confusion accompanies ignorance. See the three levels of doctrine in post # 200.

Bringing in topics like “suicide” and the Spanish Inquisition”, and without any facts, merely shows the attempts to evade the reality of the condemnation of contraception and confuse faith and morals with discipline.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I would like to broach this simple question. Is the problem with Catholics who ignore the teachings of the church on contraception, or with the teachings of the church?

FNR
Is this not the fire that Christ brought to earth and the Church continues in that mission?
His teaching causes crisis (ie the necessity of making a choice) in the hearts of all in the measure of our distance from God. We are all both purified or burned (or both) accordingly and in varying degrees.

For those who battle to conform to that teaching the tension between our lives and Gods teaching is a burning that continually purifies and thus eventually heals and diminishes the tension.

 

[HOLY_POOH_FAN]

So, the use of torture was moral but now isn’t. Or, are you saying that only those inquisitors who used torture were acting immoral? Since the use of torture was universal in many inquisitions, are you saying that all those involved in those inquisitions were acting immorally, but that the enterprise in which they were engaged was moral? That sounds feeble at best.

How about the practice of “relaxing heretics to the secular arm” for execution? Was it then immoral to do so? Or was it then moral but would now be immoral?

Taking into account Catechism 2267, which says that the death penalty is immoral if “non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor” – the aggressor being, in this case, the heretic. Since the Inquisition, itself, condemned many heretics to imprisonment without relaxing them, clearly non-lethal means were available.

Has morality changed? Was the death penalty then moral but is not now? If morality doesn’t change, then one would have to say that the Inquisition acted immorally in both its use of torture and relaxing heretics to the secular arm for horrid executions.

+++++++++
The Syllabus of Errors of Pio Nono has to be judged in light of the circumstances of the times. He had no idea of any democratic society, the push in his time was to oust the Church from education, public life, Napoleon had invaded the Vatican, States, and kept Pope away for several years- the French Revolution was the extreme expression of “liberte’ egalite’ and fraternite’” . The Popes came to understand the way that non-Caucasian un-baptised people were being treated and set about setting up laws and rules for them, Bartolemeo de Las Casas OP a former lawyer then priest and bishop developed what is today the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1947., Vatican 11’s decree on Religious Liberty was a watershed document on the topic, that and the treatment of Jews and the actions of Popes since then are examples of how the Church grows with the grace of the Holy Spirit. Infalibility does not mean the Church is a “knowitall,” reading or copying from a Divine Teleprompter but when it does speak definitively in extraordinary ways, it is either Natural Law or Revealed or both, and that is God’s Truth as Jesus promised us.

 

[LaSainte]

I REALLY wish the Church would talk more about this from the pulpit. I didn’t know the seriousness of this issue until very recently, and it has been extremely difficult for me to accept in my marriage. My husband finds it ridiculous, so I receive constant pushback from him as well, making it harder for me to follow. It is a source of tension in my marriage, not of unity. If I had been indoctrinated as a child about these things, I would just believe them without question in the same way I believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity. There is no logical REASON for me to believe that Mary was a virgin for her entire life, but I’ve been told that she was since I was a kid and I believe it. Same thing here.

Here are the problems I have with the arguments I hear:

1.) Onan-nothing clearly points to him being killed for contraception. I have heard all the arguments, but even the Church has distanced itself in recent years from this line of reasoning. In TOB, JP2 clearly states that the teaching of the Magisterium, NOT scripture, is where we derive our teachings on contraception: “However, we can say more. Even if the moral law, formulated in this way in Humanae Vitae, is not found literally in Sacred Scripture, nonetheless, from the fact that it is contained in tradition and—as Pope Paul VI writes—has been “very often expounded by the Magisterium” (HV n. 12) to the faithful, it follows that this norm is in accordance with the sum total of revealed doctrine contained in biblical sources (cf. HV n. 4).”.
It goes on to say that the teaching is a part of the more general “moral order” revealed by God as well as Natural Law.

2.) Natural Law- Not everything that goes against the Natural Law is considered to be a mortal sin, but this is. Take breast implants for example. For the sake of vanity and to be more sexually attractive (some might even say in order to incite lust), women mutilate themselves. Often times, this mutilation COMPLETELY DESTROYS the natural function of the breasts, causing said woman to be totally unable to feed her offspring in the manner intended by God, which also provides the baby with essential bonding as well as with protection against disease for the rest of his life. Clearly, such a thing goes against the Natural Law, and yet it is not a mortal sin.

3.) Intent- intent here doesn’t matter. HV makes it clear that one can contracept with completely valid intentions and PJP2 reiterates this in TOB.

4.) NFP is natural- as we know, this argument is bogus and has nothing to do with the morality of the situation.

5.) Church fathers- An honest reading of Augustine shows that he would most likely have been against NFP, not for it. This is irrelevant anyway, as the church fathers do not determine church doctrine.

6.) If non-vaginal ejaculation were allowed, people would be permitted to masturbate, have sex with those of the same sex, and even animals. This is a slippery-slope argument, but I feel as if this is a main reason why the current ban on non-vaginal ejaculation remains. But as we know, just because permitting one thing that MAY be moral may lead to other immoral behaviors is not a reason to forbid a thing altogether. For example, We don’t forbid killing in a just war or in self defense based on the fact that some people may turn around and kill innocents or non-combatants with the same weapons with which they are fighting the war.

Unitive and Procreative-this argument I think goes back to Natural Law, which as stated earlier can be broken non-sinfully (or at least not mortally so)in some cases such as breast augmentation without much fuss.

Now, I am not saying this to try and convince anyone that this teaching is bogus by any means. I follow this teaching, as many problems as it is causing me. I am saying this because this is what goes on in the minds of a lot of intelligent Catholics. This is how we see the arguments as they stand, and we make up a VAST majority of Catholics. It is not a lack of intelligence, or lack of a will to understand, or lack of prayer. My husband and I both have around 150 IQs and I have prayed for YEARS for illumination and understanding for both of us on this issue.

I follow this rule because I know that following it won’t send me to hell, but NOT following it might. Bottom line. I follow it because I love Jesus and I want to try to do His will even if I don’t understand or truly believe in this rule. I hope He will see how much I love him and how hard it is for us and let that make up for any lack of faith in Church teachings that we may have or any errors in judgement on our part. Fear of hell and love of Christ is what keeps me adhering to this teaching.

If the Church is serious about this issue, they need to pound it from the pulpits and indoctrinate children early, because attaching mortal sin to it and then remaining all but silent on the matter because it is a difficult or unpopular teaching is putting people’s souls in danger. I don’t know how merciful Jesus will be on those in His Church who, out of fear of saying something unpopular, remain silent and fail to properly form His people.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I don’t have any statistics, but everyone on this board seems to be saying that almost every priest they talk to says ABC is sometimes ok. I just wonder occasionally if the Church forbids it as the norm but if someone prayerfully seeks the advice of a priest, they may leave it up to their discretion. I’m not baffled by the presence of sin so much, but these numbers are HUGE.

To put your mind at ease, every priest that I have spoken to regarding this matter has told us it was wrong.

A priest challenged us, “When are you going to stop using what you’re using?”

Almost 9 years ago, thankfully for this priest!

 

[davidv]

Thanks LaSante for the clear statement. I share your heartfelt confusion over the position of the Church and the difficulty of practicing Catholics to understand and follow it.

Should confusion be an excuse for disobedience?

 

[Abu]

LaSainte #204
Onan-nothing clearly points to him being killed for contraception.

How much clearer than papal condemnation? “
Pope Pius XI has interpreted that Onan was killed by God for contraception, well established from St Augustine, and the CCC refers us to that.

“We shall give the last word here to Pope Pius XI, who, in quoting the greatest of the Church Fathers, summed up and reaffirmed this unbroken tradition in his Encyclical on Christian Marriage, *Casti Connubii *(31 December 1930). After roundly condemning as intrinsically contrary to the natural moral law all practices which intend to deprive the conjugal act of its procreative power, the Pontiff gave an authoritative interpretation of this biblical text which not only confirms the tradition, but is itself confirmed by impartial and historically well-informed exegesis:
“ ‘Wherefore it is not surprising that the Sacred Scriptures themselves also bear witness to the fact that the divine Majesty attends this unspeakable depravity with the utmost detestation, sometimes having punished it with death, as St. Augustine recalls: “For it is illicit and shameful for a man to lie with even his lawful wife in such a way as to prevent the conception of offspring. This is what Onan, son of Judah, used to do; and for that God slew him” ’(cf. Gen. 38: 8-10).”
rtforum.org/lt/lt67.html

HV makes it clear that one can contracept with completely valid intentions and PJP2 reiterates this in TOB

Totally false and no evidence.

Natural Law, which as stated earlier can be broken non-sinfully (or at least not mortally so) in some cases such as breast augmentation without much fuss.

False. Anything which goes against the natural moral law is ipso facto wrong.

Since when has using normal aids to health and well-being become “unnatural”? Any medical procedure that is not immoral is normal when it aids improved health and well-being. The natural law means that if you want things to prosper, you have to use them in accord with their nature. Using means that cause harm to natural functions is blatantly wrong.

An honest reading of Augustine shows that he would most likely have been against NFP, not for it.

Another false assumption as seen above.

If the Church is serious about this issue, they need to pound it from the pulpits and indoctrinate children early, because attaching mortal sin to it and then remaining all but silent on the matter because it is a difficult or unpopular teaching is putting people’s souls in danger. I don’t know how merciful Jesus will be on those in His Church who, out of fear of saying something unpopular, remain silent and fail to properly form His people.

Now good sense – the laxity identified by Timothy Cardinal Dolan, and promoted by the theologians dissenting against Humanae Vitae, twisting Vatican II, and the destruction of priestly formation through that, following Vatican II, are the reasons.

 

[anrmenchaca47]

As a long time user of NFP after once using contraceptives long ago, it is pretty “natural” to me. I charted even when we were TTC, or were completely open to life. In fact, when we were TTC, I knew I was pregnant without using a pregnancy test, from the data from the chart. I will advise all my daughter’s to chart, regardless of their state in life, married or single. It gives great information into a woman’s health at any stage, young, middle age, premenopause. Honestly, taking my temperature in the morning when the alarm goes off, as I’m trying to get a few more minutes of sleep before getting up for work is not “effort”. It certainly is less “effort” than using a barrier method of contraception, which requires some interruption of the maritial act and actually takes more time. The other parts of NFP are simply observations, not difficult tasks. I chart electronically. I spend maybe 3 minutes a day on it, max.

I have had to use NFP for lifethreatening reasons after the birth of my last child. Not only should I not bear additional children, our child died when he was 2 weeks old, from a hospital aquired infection, which was completely devastating. And now there will be no more children. So I understand completely the complex issues that can be involved.

But NFP works, even in difficult situations. Is abstaining difficult? Absolutely. It can be a real struggle at times. But it is worth it. The rewards, for us, have been great. About half my friends/couples have had unintended pregnancies WHILE using contraceptives. So, if your ex-wife had a lifethreatening issue, and became pregnant using contraceptives, then what? With NFP, in a case such as this, you can apply extremely conservative rules with great confidence, such as using post ovulatory days only with an added day, or even abstain completely if the issue is so very grave.

There is a secular version of NFP, promoted in the book Take charge of your fertility. Since it is secular, using barriers is “allowed” during the fertile phase - there are no moral arguments against them… Interestingly enough, the author strongly advises AGAINST this. Her arguement? If your contraceptive is going to fail, this is the ONLY time it will matter, is during the fertile time. If you really can’t get pregnant, using barriers during the fertile time is risky. So why do people who have no qualms with contraceptives use NFP? Many have discovered what the church teaches - they enjoy sex more without barriers or devices. They feel their spouse is “holding back” or not giving themselves completely. They feel it helps their relationships. They have issues with the abortifacient aspects of chemical contraceptives. Many who follow this method do use barriers during the fertile time, are still anxious to have “natural sex” after this period has passed. Many simply abstain. What the church tells us is true, and people outside the faith are beginning to discover it too.

My question in regards to this is how do I make my wife understand it? On top of this she expects me to get a vasectomy. Also, how do I deal with my wife when she uses psychological warfare on me causing much emotional torment? Finally, what if I have already suggested talking with a priest about this and she refuses to buy into that when a priest we used to talk to says it would not constitute a grave sin? With me… It seems that all I have is prayer but I don’t feel that it has helped much because as of right now, I’m going through with the procedure unless God, with much prayer and intercession, makes her have a change of heart.

 

[LaSainte]

How much clearer than papal condemnation? “
Pope Pius XI has interpreted that Onan was killed by God for contraception, well established from St Augustine, and the CCC refers us to that.

“We shall give the last word here to Pope Pius XI, who, in quoting the greatest of the Church Fathers, summed up and reaffirmed this unbroken tradition in his Encyclical on Christian Marriage, *Casti Connubii *(31 December 1930). After roundly condemning as intrinsically contrary to the natural moral law all practices which intend to deprive the conjugal act of its procreative power, the Pontiff gave an authoritative interpretation of this biblical text which not only confirms the tradition, but is itself confirmed by impartial and historically well-informed exegesis:
“ ‘Wherefore it is not surprising that the Sacred Scriptures themselves also bear witness to the fact that the divine Majesty attends this unspeakable depravity with the utmost detestation, sometimes having punished it with death, as St. Augustine recalls: “For it is illicit and shameful for a man to lie with even his lawful wife in such a way as to prevent the conception of offspring. This is what Onan, son of Judah, used to do; and for that God slew him” ’(cf. Gen. 38: 8-10).”
rtforum.org/lt/lt67.html
Totally false and no evidence.
False. Anything which goes against the natural moral law is ipso facto wrong.

Since when has using normal aids to health and well-being become “unnatural”? Any medical procedure that is not immoral is normal when it aids improved health and well-being. The natural law means that if you want things to prosper, you have to use them in accord with their nature. Using means that cause harm to natural functions is blatantly wrong.
Another false assumption as seen above.

Now good sense – the laxity identified by Timothy Cardinal Dolan, and promoted by the theologians dissenting against Humanae Vitae, twisting Vatican II, and the destruction of priestly formation through that, following Vatican II, are the reasons.

As I said, yes, one Pope and Augustine did interpret the Onan story as such, and of you read TOB, JP2 states that the prohibition on contraception is NOT derived directly from scripture, but from a general “moral norm”. Who was right?

Also, you state that my claim that TOB refers to HV stating that intentions are not what makes contraception licit or illicit and that one can contracept with perfectly valid intentions is completely false and that I had no evidence for it? Here:

"Paul VI states that “in each case married couples, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children.” He even writes: “…that they mean to make sure that none will be born” (HV 16). In these words the document admits that even those who use contraceptive practices can be motivated by “acceptable reasons.”
-JP2, TOB

And can you explain to me how mutilating one’s breasts for the viewing pleasure of another while simultaneously making it impossible for them to fulfill their natural function of nourishing a child is NOT going against the Natural Law? And yet somehow this is not sinful. How does this promote health and well-being?

And yes, of course Augustine would have been against NFP if he would have known about it. Would he have submitted this personal belief to the authority of the magisterium? Also yes, of course, but this doesn’t change the fact that any reading of Augustine makes it blatantly obvious that sex solely for pleasure with no intention of creating a child was to him, at least venially sinful.

The only way to get anywhere close to a majority of Catholics on board with this teaching is straight-up indoctrination, because for the vast majority of people, these arguments just appear to be Monday morning quarterbacking, trying to make sense of and explain something that is essentially just rooted in tradition, a tradition based on erroneous thinking and false understandings of human reproduction. Does that make the entire teaching wrong? Not necessarily, but it certainly makes it tough to swallow.

 

[LaSainte]

To put your mind at ease, every priest that I have spoken to regarding this matter has told us it was wrong.

A priest challenged us, “When are you going to stop using what you’re using?”

Almost 9 years ago, thankfully for this priest!

Sounds like a very faithful priest!

 

[Abu]

LaSainte #209
JP2 states that the prohibition on contraception is NOT derived directly from scripture, but from a general “moral norm”. Who was right?

There is no conflict here, because, post #64, the natural law transcends cultures: “It is precisely because the natural law is held to be accessible to reason and thus binding on all rational persons irrespective of religious faith or its absence that St Paul could say in his Letter to the Romans that ‘…it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law that will be justified. When the Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness….’ ” (Rom 2:13-15).
The Clash of Orthodoxies, Dr Robert P George, ISI Books, 2001, p 161

"Paul VI states that “in each case married couples, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children.” He even writes: “…that they mean to make sure that none will be born” (HV 16). In these words the document admits that even those who use contraceptive practices can be motivated by “acceptable reasons.”
-JP2, TOB

FAITHFULNESS TO THE DIVINE PLAN IN THE TRANSMISSION OF LIFE
Pope John Paul II
General audience of August 8, 1984
Natural Regulation versus Contraception
“From this there derive two actions that are ethically different, indeed, even opposed: the natural regulation of fertility is morally correct; contraception is not morally correct. This essential difference between the two actions (modes of acting) concerns their intrinsic ethical character……

“In these words the document admits that even those who make use of contraceptive practices can be motivated by ‘acceptable reasons’; however, this does not change the moral character which is based on the very structure of the conjugal act as such.

“4. The whole of the previous discussion is summed up in the exposition of the doctrine contained in “Humanae vitae,” by pointing out its normative and at the same time its pastoral character. In the normative dimension it is a question of making more precise and clear the moral principles of action; in the pastoral dimension it is a question especially of pointing out the possibility of acting in accordance with these principles (“the possibility of the observance of the divine law,” HV 20).
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP840808.HTM

Thus Bl John Paul II teaches that “motivated by ‘acceptable reasons’ does not change the moral character” which is “not morally correct”.

In post #207 you claimed that:
Bl JPII stated that one can contracept with “completely valid intentions”.

Since “valid” = well grounded in logic, truth, that is patently false, as there is no ground in logic or truth for such an intention (purpose) to contracept.

any reading of Augustine makes it blatantly obvious that sex solely for pleasure with no intention of creating a child was to him, at least genially sinful.

However:
jesus-logos.blogspot.com/2010/12/marriage-and-prophylactic-use-of.html
Further, from early in the tradition, a secondary purpose was recognized. Augustine put it this way:
“Husband and wife owe one another not only the faithful association of sexual union for the sake of getting children—which makes the first society of the human race in this our mortality—but more than that a kind of mutual service of bearing the burden of one another’s weakness, so as to prevent unlawful intercourse. (12)"
(12) Quoted in Elizabeth Anscombe, Contraception and Chastity

Elizabeth Anscombe observes that St Thomas makes the point that “a man ought to pay the marriage debt if he can see the wife wants it without her having to ask him. And he ought to notice if she does not want it. This is an apt gloss on St Augustine’s ‘mutual service’, and it destroys the basis for the picture which some have had of intercourse not for the sake of children as a little bit sinful on one side, since one must be ‘demanding’, and not for any worthy motive but purely ‘out of desire for pleasure’. One could hardly say that being diagnosable as wanting intercourse was a sin!”
[Elizabeth Anscombe is one of the foremost scholars of philosophy in the second half of the twentieth century, and her article on *Contraception And Chastity gives the reality of the arguments on sex in marriage in Why Humanae Vitae Was Right, Ignatius, 1993, p 127].

something that is essentially just rooted in tradition, a tradition based on erroneous thinking and false understandings of human reproduction.

How inane.
In Familiaris Consortio Bl John Paul II reaffirmed that “The total physical self-giving would be **a lie **if it were not the sign and fruit of a total personal self-giving, in which the whole person, including the temporal dimension, is present: if the person were to withhold something or reserve the possibility of deciding otherwise in the future, by this very fact he or she would not be giving totally.” (#11).

He called on theologians “to collaborate with the hierarchical Magisterium and to commit themselves to the task of illustrating ever more clearly the biblical foundations, the ethical grounds and the personalistic reasons behind this doctrine." (#31).

Note: 3 foundations.

 

[LaSainte]

I don’t think the “total self-giving” argument flies with most people. I say this because it applies only to the physical self, not the emotional self, which can hardly be called total. After all, a woman with 8 kids using NFP who is terrified of conceiving to the point where she cannot enjoy being with her husband at all and spends the entire time praying and terrified that she doesn’t get pregnant can hardly be said to be “totally self-giving”.

Also, as I said, why is it so important to follow the natural law here, but not with things such as breast augmentation-which can and often DOES mutilate the body and destroy a woman’s ability to nourish her young in the best way possible? Surely this is against the natural law, but it is not a sin.

And I think most people can agree that because of his past, Augusine had a very bleak view of married sexuality- in fact reducing it to either being solely for procreative purposes at best, and simply to satisfy sexual desire and avoid extra-marital intercourse and lust at worst.

As I said, I say these things only to illustrate that the Church’s arguments against ABC are almost sporadic in how they are applied to sex and not other things. Breaking natural law here is a mortal sin, but feel free to mutilate a perfectly good body part for vanity’s sake.

You need to be “totally self-giving”, but only the physical self, not the emotional self.

There seem to be contradictions.

It would be better if the Church just said, “Don’t do it because the Holy Spirit has revealed it to be wrong and the full weight of the Magisterium agrees”.

Better yet, let the Pope speak ex-cathedral on the matter and put it to rest ONCE AND FOR ALL. Then no Catholic could ever again claim that they did not know or understand the seriousness of the teaching.

 

[LaSainte]

*ex cathedra

 

[Chrono13]

There is no conflict here, because, post #64, the natural law transcends cultures: “It is precisely because the natural law is held to be accessible to reason and thus binding on all rational persons irrespective of religious faith or its absence that St Paul could say in his Letter to the Romans that ‘…it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law that will be justified. The Clash of Orthodoxies, Dr Robert P George, ISI Books, 2001, p 161

If this is so, why Augustine and his brethern believed tracking female fertility circle (in order to avoid conception) is sinful/unnatrual? They also used the idea of natural law, yet came to different conclusions regarding this practice?

Further, from early in the tradition, a secondary purpose was recognized. Augustine put it this way:
“Husband and wife owe one another not only the faithful association of sexual union for the sake of getting children—which makes the first society of the human race in this our mortality—but more than that a kind of mutual service of bearing the burden of one another’s weakness, so as to prevent unlawful intercourse. (12)"(12) Quoted in Elizabeth Anscombe, Contraception and Chastity

This is incorrect.

Everyone can see from bolded claim of St. Augustine that marital sexuality, for him, is a “burden” and “weakness” of couple/partner, yet intercourse is tolerated to prevent bigger sin (sex outside of marriage).

Elizabeth Anscome tries to give impression that Augustine saw secondary purpose of marital intercouse in mutual self-giving and unity, but this is simply not the case. He claims that, altough sex is bad, couple have duty to cohabit in order to avoid extramarital intercourse. Yet, even in marriage, sex is still of sinful nature- venial.

Elizabeth Anscombe observes that St Thomas makes the point that “a man ought to pay the marriage debt if he can see the wife wants it without her having to ask him. And he ought to notice if she does not want it. This is an apt gloss on St Augustine’s ‘mutual service’, and it destroys the basis for the picture which some have had of intercourse not for the sake of children as a little bit sinful on one side, since one must be ‘demanding’, and not for any worthy motive but purely ‘out of desire for pleasure’. One could hardly say that being diagnosable as wanting intercourse was a sin!”

This Anscombe’s passage repeats the mistake of the previous one. St. Thomas simply suggests that a man can provide sexual relief to his wife even without her formal asking. It is questionable how far Thomas followed premise that sex is evil apart from procreation, but “mutual service” that she mentions is venial sin according to St. Augustine.

[Elizabeth Anscombe is one of the foremost scholars of philosophy in the second half of the twentieth century, and her article on *Contraception And Chastity

gives the reality of the arguments on sex in marriage in Why Humanae Vitae Was Right, Ignatius, 1993, p 127].

Augustine is all over the net, people can read his work and compare it to Elizabeth Anscombe’s claims.

“When judging, don’t look who is who, but base decision on truth and justice”
Didache

He called on theologians “to collaborate with the hierarchical Magisterium and to commit themselves to the task of illustrating ever more clearly the biblical foundations, the ethical grounds and the personalistic reasons behind this doctrine." (#31).

No authority can deny, or bypass the truth.

It is the fact of Catholic history that sex was seen as evil, and contraception (NFP included) was forbidden mainly on that ground. No authority, clerical or secular, can bypass this truth, and conclusions behind it.

This holds even if contraception is of evil nature.

 

[Chrono13]

Better yet, let the Pope speak ex-cathedral on the matter and put it to rest ONCE AND FOR ALL. Then no Catholic could ever again claim that they did not know or understand the seriousness of the teaching.

Pope can do this, but not without accepting the true nature of past teachings, and how they reflected lives of Catholics.

If Church taught that sex apart from intending conception is bad, then bishops need to make their decisions with this in mind. We can’t look at St. Augustine as some kind of Theologian of the Body, nor can we forget countless Catholics who were forced to believe sex in marrige is bad.

We need to accept our past as it is. Embrace our history and recognize it’s value.

 

[LaSainte]

Pope can do this, but not without accepting the true nature of past teachings, and how they reflected lives of Catholics.

If Church taught that sex apart from intending conception is bad, then bishops need to make their decisions with this in mind. We can’t look at St. Augustine as some kind of Theologian of the Body, nor can we forget countless Catholics who were forced to believe sex in marrige is bad.

We need to accept our past as it is. Embrace our history and recognize it’s value.

I don’t know why people try to twist Augustine’s intentions into something they clearly do not seem to be. Yes, he was a church father. Yes, he was very holy. But he was not perfect and his ideas about sex were extremely skewed by his own debauched experiences. Why try and make a claim that Augustine would not have said that NFP is evil when he so clearly would have? Now a good question would be, “Would Augustine have submitted to the Church’s ruling on the licitness NFP?”. I would say probably, yes. But from his own words, he very obviously thought that ANYTHING done to lessen the chance of procreation, including only having sex during infertile times, was sinful, probably mortally so.

 

[Nate13]

Gaudium et Spes (Ecclesiastical Latin: ˈɡawdium et ˈspɛs], Joy and Hope), the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, was one of the four Apostolic Constitutions resulting from the Second Vatican Council. The document is an overview of the Catholic Church’s teachings about humanity’s relationship to society, especially in reference to economics, poverty, social justice, culture, science, technology and ecumenism.

Approved by a vote of 2,307 to 75 of the bishops assembled at the council, it was promulgated by Pope Paul VI on 7 December 1965, the day the council ended.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html

1. This council realizes that certain modern conditions often keep couples from arranging their married lives harmoniously, and that they find themselves in circumstances where at least temporarily the size of their families should not be increased. As a result, the faithful exercise of love and the full intimacy of their lives is hard to maintain. But where the intimacy of married life is broken off, its faithfulness can sometimes be imperiled and its quality of fruitfulness ruined, for then the upbringing of the children and the courage to accept new ones are both endangered.

To these problems there are those who presume to offer dishonorable solutions indeed; they do not recoil even from the taking of life. But the Church issues the reminder that a true contradiction cannot exist between the divine laws pertaining to the transmission of life and those pertaining to authentic conjugal love.

For God, the Lord of life, has conferred on men the surpassing ministry of safeguarding life in a manner which is worthy of man. Therefore from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes. The sexual characteristics of man and the human faculty of reproduction wonderfully exceed the dispositions of lower forms of life. Hence the acts themselves which are proper to conjugal love and which are exercised in accord with genuine human dignity must be honored with great reverence. Hence when there is question of harmonizing conjugal love with the responsible transmission of life, the moral aspects of any procedure does not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives, but must be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature of the human person and his acts, preserve the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love. Such a goal cannot be achieved unless the virtue of conjugal chastity is sincerely practiced. Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law.(14)

(14) citation is in reference to this:

1. Cf. Pius XI, encyclical letter Casti Connubii: AAS 22 (1930): Denz.-Schoen. 3716-3718, Pius XII, Allocutio Conventui Unionis Italicae inter Obstetrices, Oct. 29, 1951: AAS 43 (1951), pp. 835-854, Paul VI, Address to a group of cardinals, June 23 1964: AAS 56 (1964), pp. 581-589. Certain questions which need further and more careful investigation have been handed over, at the command of the Supreme Pontiff, to a commission for the study of population, family, and births, in order that, after it fulfills its function, the Supreme Pontiff may pass judgment. With the doctrine of the magisterium in this state, this holy synod does not intend to propose immediately concrete solutions.

 

[Abu]

The Church has far more important things to teach than to have to teach specifically on breast implants.
Face the facts: Using normal aids to health and well-being are perfectly “natural”. Any medical procedure that is not immoral is normal when it aids improved health and well-being. The natural law means that if you want things to prosper, you have to use them in accord with their nature. Using means that cause harm to natural functions is blatantly wrong.

Certainly blame can be laid on those bishops and priests who have failed to explain, counsel, preach, and act in the confessional with fidelity towards Christ’s truth, as well as those theologians and laity who dissent or fail to help others to the fullness of truth.

LaSainte #212
Better yet, let the Pope speak ex-cathedra on the matter and put it to rest ONCE AND FOR ALL. Then no Catholic could ever again claim that they did not know or understand the seriousness of the teaching.

How naïve. By now you should know that the papal doctrine against contraception is infallible and therefore ex cathedra – since when have all Catholics rejected their prejudices and assented to all doctrine? The infallible doctrine is in *Casti Connubii *(Pius XI, 1930) in response to the Anglican capitulation which broke the Protestant consensus in 1930, and, after the advent of the “Pill”, reaffirmed in Humanae Vitae (Paul VI, 1965).

**From EWTN Q&A: Answer by David Gregson on Nov-22-2002: **
“You are correct in stating that the Pope exercises his charism of infallibility not only in dogmatic definitions issued, ex cathedra, as divinely revealed (of which there have been only two), but also in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra, which would include canonizations (that they are in fact Saints, enjoying the Beatific Vision in heaven), moral teachings (such as contained in Humanae vitae), and other doctrines he has taught as necessarily connected with truths divinely revealed, such as that priestly ordination is reserved to men.”

From Vatican I (Pastor Aeternus), for infallibility to be exercised the Pope must teach
(a) ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter), that is as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians,
(b) speaking with Peter’s apostolic authority to the whole Church,
(c) defining a doctrine of faith and morals.

So the Pope’s ‘ex cathedra’ definitions may be either of revealed dogma, to be believed with divine faith, or of other truths necessary for guarding and expounding revealed truth. Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar Magisterium have explicitly affirmed that both ecclesial and papal infallibility extend to the secondary doctrinal truths necessary for guarding and expounding revelation. Thus Humanae Vitae (Encyclical) against contraception, and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (Apostolic Epistle) on male-only priests, contain infallible doctrinal definitions, to remove all doubt.

Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, 25) reaffirms this teaching: “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk 22:32) – he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.”

Thus, no dogma has to be affirmed, nor anyone anathematized, nor the word “define” or “definition” be used for an infallible papal teaching – only that the Pope is handing down a certain, decisive judgment that a point of doctrine on faith or morals is true and its contrary false.

 

[LaSainte]

So what “divinely revealed truth” does the mandate against ABC guard and expound upon? Isn’t this a bit outside of the sphere of infallibility?

And if it is infallible doctrine, an ex cathedra statement would serve to reassure and unite the faithful. That is what an ex cathedra statement is for, to reaffirm the truth of an already infallible doctrine when there is dissent, disagreement or confusion among Catholics. Surely this fits the bill, if in fact the teaching is infallible, n’est-ce pas?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

So what “divinely revealed truth” does the mandate against ABC guard and expound upon? Isn’t this a bit outside of the sphere of infallibility?

And if it is infallible doctrine, an ex cathedra statement would serve to reassure and unite the faithful. That is what an ex cathedra statement is for, to reaffirm the truth of an already infallible doctrine when there is dissent, disagreement or confusion among Catholics. Surely this fits the bill, if in fact the teaching is infallible, n’est-ce pas?

Wasn’t the scope of Humanea Vitae just that, to “reaffirm the truth of an already infallible doctrine when there is dissent, disagreement or confusion among Catholics”?