Why Do Most Catholics Ignore Humane Vitae?

[kalbertone]

The magesterium of who ? Pope Paul the VI who approved Democracy when approving the Vatican II documents or Pius IX condemning it. John Paul II condemning slavery in Veritatis Splendour ot Pius IX approving it ? Pius XII stating sexual relations in marriage are holy,countles other popes(& wackos) saying its dirty & a necessarry evil ? The election of Bishops as done throughout church history allows for diversity in unity.What was Augustines famous statement,i believe it was something like this—“unity in what is essential,liberty in all things of doubt,above all love”

 

[redbirdNY]

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?

One view of Catholic moral theology is that engaging in sexual intercourse with one’s spouse while wearing a barrier has the net effect of “using” one’s partner as a means to one’s own gratification. Well, I’d suggest that whoever wrote that probably hasn’t been in a position of trying to please one’s partner in bed. It’s not self-gratification, it’s mutual love.

I’m one of those shames of the Catholic Church – a divorced Catholic. But prior to that divorce, my ex-wife was advised by her doctors not to get pregnant again. I’m not going to divulge personal details, but suffice it to say that it was serious.

The loss of her ability to have more children was utterly devastating to my ex-wife. Did I think that I’d practice marital chastity, as my Church commands? Not for a second. To have her fertility taken out of her hands was a blow to her identity – having her sexuality dry up would be another whip of the lash. I wanted to comfort her, to make her feel whole and loved again. And I did not obey the church.

Yes, there are methods of effective “natural family planning” – which seem to me to be as natural as chewing a rough board. The “Calendar Days” approach is slip-shod effective. The thermometer approach? How natural is that? I know it works because it’s the flip side of how you optimize fertility naturally when trying to GET pregnant. But seriously, is any of that any less “self-gratifying” than artificial contraception?

I’m the last to argue that there’s not a downside to cheap and easy artificial contraception – the “demographic winter” notion is a real one facing a lot of countries, including urban centers in places like Detroit and Cleveland. But I’m really unconvinced by a Theology of the Body that says that trying to bring pleasure to one’s spouse (without getting her pregnant) is selfish.

I applaud you for using the brain that God gave you and for loving your wife in the most unselfish way.

 

[redbirdNY]

Avoiding sex can be very self-gratifying if it brings you and your beloved closer to God. Couples who aren’t married yet avoid sex out of love for each other, for God, and respect for their own bodies. When a person’s only means of self-gratification is an orgasm, they’re in for some difficulty.

If a person wants to avoid sex…than why not be single?

 

[redbirdNY]

Two factors, if I may simplify rather broadly:

1. Buried in the unexamined cultural assumptions we absorb through sociological osmosis is the idea that humans are spiritual beings stuck in an incidentally physical container that has no relevance to who we ARE. This is foolishness when you actually say it out loud, but it really is a continuously underlying theme in our modern culture.
2. Moral behavior is hard. 100% of catholics have sinned by lying in their lives, but you don’t see a movement trying to legitimize the practice, do you? The only reason it happens in the case of contraception is due to #1 above. It’s easy to see why lying has bad consequences. But when you come to the table believing that the physical has no importance to the spiritual, it’s hard to understand catholic sexual teaching.

Catholic teaching tells us that God created sexual intimacy to be a gift that we regive to our spouses that encompasses the physical, spiritual and communal aspects of human existence. In other words, marriage, sex and babies are NOT three different topics, they are an entwined ecosystem making up ONE topic: human sexuality. Modern culture simply assumes these are three separate topics and is subsequently unable to see the obvious (to catholics) causality in our culture between sexual license and the ongoing collapse of family integrity.

Within marriage, contraception contributes to this because buried in the act is the message “sex fundamentally has nothing to do with babies.” This is a lie and lies damage relationships, even if the lie is one told by the body rather than the mouth. When the couple learns to discern fertility and avoids sexual contact during those times for serious reasons, the NATURE of their sexual encounter still revolves around the reality that sex and babies are both part of the one substance of human sexuality. See the difference? THAT is what the “natural” in NFP is about. It’s not “natural” in the granola sense, but natural in the theological definition: “according to the nature of the thing in question.”

What lie do you keep referring to? When my husband and I were sexually active, neither one of us felt like contraceptives were causing a withholding feeling. I truly believe that the Church would love for all of us to only have sex for the purpose of procreation…

 

[HOLY_POOH_FAN]

The magesterium of who ? Pope Paul the VI who approved Democracy when approving the Vatican II documents or Pius IX condemning it. John Paul II condemning slavery in Veritatis Splendour ot Pius IX approving it ? Pius XII stating sexual relations in marriage are holy,countles other popes(& wackos) saying its dirty & a necessarry evil ? The election of Bishops as done throughout church history allows for diversity in unity.What was Augustines famous statement,i believe it was something like this—“unity in what is essential,liberty in all things of doubt,above all love”

==========================+++============================
The difficulty people such as you have, kalbertone is simple. You do not understand the context, and culture of papal and Church documents. The condemnation of “democracy” by Pius 1X was the kind that did not allow the Church to be free, Napoleon invaded the Vatican, captured the Pope, you know what happened with the “liberte’ egualite’ fraternite’” was applied to those the revolution hated. No pope ever condemned marriage or sexuality as dirty or evil-cite references, please so you or I may apologise. Same goes for slavery and human rights, and religious freedom. Experience taught the whole Church, there is no Bank Deposit Box available to the Pope who is supposed to know it all.
. There is a slow, patient-sometimes stubborn resistance on the part of some key leaders or the people to acceot and recognise the Voice of God, the Holy Spirit. No magic, just Grace overcoming human cussedness…

 

[kalbertone]

==========================+++============================
The difficulty people such as you have, kalbertone is simple. You do not understand the context, and culture of papal and Church documents. The condemnation of “democracy” by Pius 1X was the kind that did not allow the Church to be free, Napoleon invaded the Vatican, captured the Pope, you know what happened with the “liberte’ egualite’ fraternite’” was applied to those the revolution hated. No pope ever condemned marriage or sexuality as dirty or evil-cite references, please so you or I may apologise. Same goes for slavery and human rights, and religious freedom. Experience taught the whole Church, there is no Bank Deposit Box available to the Pope who is supposed to know it all.
. There is a slow, patient-sometimes stubborn resistance on the part of some key leaders or the people to acceot and recognise the Voice of God, the Holy Spirit. No magic, just Grace overcoming human cussedness…

 

[kalbertone]

Pope Gregory stated after a man has slept with his wife that he may not enter a church until he has purged himself by penance & washing for his will remains evil. Pope Innocent II declared at the Synod of Clermont “Since priests are suppose to be God^s temples,vessels of the lord…it offends their dignity to lie in the conjugal bed & live in impurity” Neither were talking about contraceptive sex,just straightforward sex between husband/wife in marriage. This shouldn^t be bizzarre since the early celibate church fathers largely shared what can be described as doctrine of demons or pure ignorance on sex that is culpable not invincible. Having said that,you respect legitimate authority(popes,bishops,councils) but in the end
a well formed upright conscience is what you must follow.The Church is much more than the pope. Its the people of God as well. As far as Democracy goes Pius IX surely would of known how the church was free in the USA & prospered. Napoleon himself was crowmned by the Pope. Popes are influenced by there own cultural/historical circumstances & sometimes can^t see farther ahead outside their castle walls

 

[choose_to_love]

@chrono, #320: OK, if I understand your argument contra Burke’s position, it is that he applies the goods of marriage incorrectly to the act of sexual intercourse, as opposed only to marriage generally. It is your position that Augustine would not apply the good of marriage to sexual intercourse itself, but that it is at least a venial sin excused by the overall benefits of marriage. Correct? Or, is it that sexual intercourse can only be licit if the couple is specifically intending to procreate?

Burke provides a citation to Augustine stating that sexual intercourse itself is a good, in itself: "And in a later passage he reiterates that he has nothing to object to Julian’s praise (by which he seeks to lead the thoughtless astray) “of the works of God; that is, his praising of human nature, of human seed, of marriage, of sexual intercourse, of the fruits of matrimony: which are all of them good things.” [29] (from Abu’s link to Msgr. Burkes’ article, at endnote 29). Is Burke’s translation of the Latin wrong? If so, where?

Here is what Burke says the Latin is: 29. “Insinuare se nititur cordibus parum intellegentium, laude operum divi*norum, hoc est, laude naturae humanae, laude seminis, laude nuptiarum, laude utriusque sexus commixtionis, laude fecunditatis: quae omnia bona sunt.” De nupt. et conc. II, c. 26, n. 42 (PL 44, 460).

Further, how is this not a counter to the argument you seem to make: { When Julian affirms (as if Augustine had denied) that marital intercourse, with its intimacy, with its pleasure, with its semination, are from God and therefore in their own way to be praised, Augustine rapidly ticks off these “non-arguments”—Dixit “cum calore”; dixit “cum voluptate”; dixit “cum semine”—which are irrelevant to their debate, since Augustine is in full agreement that these are good things given by God. But, he goes on, Julian, who says of all of this (making points which I have never called into question), does not mention precisely what I say is bad in intercourse: carnal concupiscence or libido. [34]} (again from Abu’s link).

Again, if Burke’s translation is wrong, please show us where - - I am not a Latin scholar.

The whole thrust (hee hee) of the argument from notes 47 through 50 is that the problem is lust, disordered desire, seen first in Adam & Eve immediately after the Fall.

 

[choose_to_love]

@redbird: the lie that sex has nothing to do with babies. Two, “feelings” aren’t the way to judge objective realities.

 

[Chrono13]

@chrono, #320: OK, if I understand your argument contra Burke’s position, it is that he applies the goods of marriage incorrectly to the act of sexual intercourse, as opposed only to marriage generally. It is your position that Augustine would not apply the good of marriage to sexual intercourse itself, but that it is at least a venial sin excused by the overall benefits of marriage. Correct? Or, is it that sexual intercourse can only be licit if the couple is specifically intending to procreate?

The points you mention (that blessings of the marriage are not connected with marital sexuality and that sex is only for procreation) are important for understanding Augustine in mutually fulfilling way. They are not separate cases.

Burke provides a citation to Augustine stating that sexual intercourse itself is a good, in itself: "And in a later passage he reiterates that he has nothing to object to Julian’s praise (by which he seeks to lead the thoughtless astray) “of the works of God; that is, his praising of human nature, of human seed, of marriage, of sexual intercourse, of the fruits of matrimony: which are all of them good things.” [29] (from Abu’s link to Msgr. Burkes’ article, at endnote 29). Is Burke’s translation of the Latin wrong? If so, where?

Latin is not the issue here, but certain lack of putting things together. The idea Augustine defended was that sex only done for procreation is „default sex.“ It is God-given, natural, good in itself, praiseworthy, and moral. Any intercourse outside the neccesity of procreation is „unnatural“, and not done in accordance with God’s plan… in other words, lustful.

This is why Augustine was capable to say sex is created by God, and good in itself.

Further, how is this not a counter to the argument you seem to make: { When Julian affirms (as if Augustine had denied) that marital intercourse, with its intimacy, with its pleasure, with its semination, are from God and therefore in their own way to be praised, Augustine rapidly ticks off these “non-arguments”—Dixit “cum calore”; dixit “cum voluptate”; dixit “cum semine”—which are irrelevant to their debate, since Augustine is in full agreement that these are good things given by God. But, he goes on, Julian, who says of all of this (making points which I have never called into question), does not mention precisely what I say is bad in intercourse: carnal concupiscence or libido. [34]} (again from Abu’s link).

Because Augustine speaks here of sex done only for procreation. Such intercourse is not at issue with intimacy, not even with the pleasure it comes with.

The problem Augustine underlines is carnal concupiscence. The term can be described, at least in some cases, as anything above simple desire of conception during sexual intercourse. Example- animals. They don’t have sex for any other reason but procreation. And when they have relations, they are usually quite straightforward. They don’t look for pleasure, nor anything else above concievement. This was ideal for Augustine.

Then things go away once more, when he will (in process, breaking his own logic) conclude that every act consists of little lust, thus children can not be concieved without lust… as confirmed in my previous post.

The whole thrust (hee hee) of the argument from notes 47 through 50 is that the problem is lust, disordered desire, seen first in Adam & Eve immediately after the Fall.

Not really. Once you learn what is disordered to Augustine, you simply find the difference between him and Burke.

 

[Chrono13]

Within marriage, contraception contributes to this because buried in the act is the message “sex fundamentally has nothing to do with babies.” This is a lie and lies damage relationships, even if the lie is one told by the body rather than the mouth. When the couple learns to discern fertility and avoids sexual contact during those times for serious reasons, the NATURE of their sexual encounter still revolves around the reality that sex and babies are both part of the one substance of human sexuality. See the difference? THAT is what the “natural” in NFP is about. It’s not “natural” in the granola sense, but natural in the theological definition: “according to the nature of the thing in question.”

This is shaky. It seems much more like a construction of an argument, then the argument itself.

Contraception, just as NFP, acknowledge that sex is connected with babies. That’s the whole point why they are used, and why they were scoulded by Church Fathers.

 

[Ben_F]

Back in the late seventies and early eighties, my wife and I faced this spiritual crisis. The doctor told us that another baby would be fatal to my wife. We were told to use the pill. In confession the Priest told my wife that God didn´t want her to be a rabbit. We in good conscience used the pill. Later she conceived again. We have a healthy 32 year old son now. God´s will…will be done, no matter what we decide. The doctors were wrong about her health and God knew best. We don´t have this problem anymore, but many do. Follow the Church, not this world. God bless:thumbsup:

 

[aragonjohn1]

Humanae vitae was prophetic and perfectly describes the concequences until now.

 

[kalbertone]

Back in the late seventies and early eighties, my wife and I faced this spiritual crisis. The doctor told us that another baby would be fatal to my wife. We were told to use the pill. In confession the Priest told my wife that God didn´t want her to be a rabbit. We in good conscience used the pill. Later she conceived again. We have a healthy 32 year old son now. God´s will…will be done, no matter what we decide. The doctors were wrong about her health and God knew best. We don´t have this problem anymore, but many do. Follow the Church, not this world. God bless:thumbsup:

I don^t see how this is anyway tied up to the morality of contraception when it comes to fostering conjugal love with responsible procreation. It is your Conscience that you must ultimately follow,always was & always will be.

 

[ahs]

I don^t see how this is anyway tied up to the morality of contraception when it comes to fostering conjugal love with responsible procreation. It is your Conscience that you must ultimately follow,always was & always will be.

…a **properly formed **conscience…formed on the teachings of Christ, Truth handed down by Him to His Apostles, from His Apostles to us via Apstolic Succession/Tradition/His Church.

 

[Chrono13]

…a **properly formed **conscience…formed on the teachings of Christ, Truth handed down by Him to His Apostles, from His Apostles to us via Apstolic Succession/Tradition/His Church.

And if this “tradition” hits the rock when people are to have sex only for procreation, what instrument of theology guards the layman?

 

[HOLY_POOH_FAN]

One more time: The current teaching of the Church, which, as in every human life, and institution, moves along slowly through moral developmen is that sexual activity is sacred and holy planned by God to bring pleasure and make babies. It has survived the Good God/Bad-god theology which Genesis challenged, the total identification of Original Sin with "concupisence by St Augustine, and various re-incarnations of the Sex is Bad anti-biblical view in Manicheanism, Puritanism, Albigensianism and Jansenism. As well as its further distortions in Hefner’s Playboy and Obama’s sick theology of marriage and “rights.” to abortion and other evils.
SEX in a healthy marriage is sacred and good. God built in non-fertile days for the woman. Discipline, genuine sacrificial love is required as it is for every human on the planet. Get it,and “get it on” unless you are single or celibate, then deal with it.

 

[Jules_Verne]

Erm, the problem is definitely, absolutely with those who ignore the teachings of the Church. To say that the Church’s teachings are in error, are even capable of being in error, is dogmatically heretical. To defy them is to place oneself at risk of damnation.

So the Church was right for hundreds of years when they said that the sun revolves around the Earth, and that saying differently was heresy, and they were justified in torturing, burning, jailing, and exiling people who believed in heliocentrism?

By the way, it is totally creepy how obsessed you guys are with other people’s sex lives and judging them. It seriously is half the threads on this web page. You guys complain about how “sex obsessed” modern culture is, but I don’t see anyone more obsessed with sex than you folks, particularly when it comes to homosexuals.

Do you think gay people sit around all day thinking about what you do with your spouse? You guys call them perverts, but I find your obsession with controlling sex way more perverted. Seriously, the fact that you actually sit around and think about how my husband and I (I am straight, btw) have sex and what we’re doing wrong about it…gross! Just, ugh. keep your dirty minds to yourselves. I think it’s a big sign of sexual dysfunction in your own relationships to be so concerned with the sex lives of others.

I’m not talking about giving eachother advice about how to conduct yourselves as Catholics, by the way. Of course that’s completely fine. But then projecting your personal religious beliefs on society as a whole and expecting the rest of us to fall in line.

Except when it comes to priests having sex with kids, of course. That’s something you all want to sweep under the rug and talk about as little as possible. Its just consenting adults in love that get your goat. Kid rape is totally cool. Cardinal Sean Brady is the head of the Catholic Church in Ireland. I was living in Dublin when it was revealed that he had not only allowed a child molestor priest to continue operating, but he had coerced his victims into silence and made them sign documents promising to keep silent. I was watching a BBC report when they were interviewing parishoner after parishoner of his exiting church one Sunday, and when asked about the fact that he had allowed child molestation to occur and had compelled the child victims into silence, every last parishoner said “I don’t care.”

Why is non procreative consensual sex in a marriage not okay, but child molestation is “eh, who cares”?"

 

[Chrono13]

One more time: The current teaching of the Church, which, as in every human life, and institution, moves along slowly through moral developmen is that sexual activity is sacred and holy planned by God to bring pleasure and make babies. It has survived the Good God/Bad-god theology which Genesis challenged, the total identification of Original Sin with "concupisence by St Augustine, and various re-incarnations of the Sex is Bad anti-biblical view in Manicheanism, Puritanism, Albigensianism and Jansenism. As well as its further distortions in Hefner’s Playboy and Obama’s sick theology of marriage and “rights.” to abortion and other evils.
SEX in a healthy marriage is sacred and good. God built in non-fertile days for the woman. Discipline, genuine sacrificial love is required as it is for every human on the planet. Get it,and “get it on” unless you are single or celibate, then deal with it.

This is problematic. Are we really to accept the fact that “sex only for procreation” is authentic development of Christian thought? If so, were layman expected to obey this ethics? And if yes, why are people like Abu saying certain things never happened?

 

[kalbertone]

…a **properly formed **conscience…formed on the teachings of Christ, Truth handed down by Him to His Apostles, from His Apostles to us via Apstolic Succession/Tradition/His Church.

Yes formed by the teachings of Christ,yes truth handed down by apostles…oops theres a difference between infallible & non infallible. that^s why the church fathers at Vatican 1 worked overtime to secure strict qualifications when a pope is infallible because they knew of the screw ups & mistakes of popes in the past.Also infallibilty belongs to the Whole Church(Vatican Council II),mentioned also at Vatican 1 & also held as a constant tradition in the doctrines of Reception & Sense Of The Faithful