Why Do Most Catholics Ignore Humane Vitae?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fnr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why Do Most Catholics Ignore Humane Vitae? Simple. Original Sin. What was the Original Sin? Deciding good and evil for yourself. What was the very first Commandment God gave to mankind? “Be fruitful and multiply.”
 
QUOTE=Richard320;9093860]Why Do Most Catholics Ignore Humane Vitae? Simple. Original Sin. What was the Original Sin? Deciding good and evil for yourself. What was the very first Commandment God gave to mankind? “Be fruitful and multiply.”
Click to expand...
Hi a catholic friend called me and wanted my view of the these posts…Actually, Nowhere does the Bible command Christians to procreate. God told the first human couple and Noah’s family: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth.” But this command was not repeated to Christians. (Genesis 1:28; 9:1)

Furthermore, Pope Paul VI’s comment: “Every conjugal act [has] to be open to the transmission of life.” and Pope John Paul II’s: “Contraception, judged objectively, is so profoundly illicit that it can never, for any reason, be justified.”
–is completely unbiblical. can ANYONE SHOW ME ONE SCRIPTURE that supports this?? True, God considers the life of a child to be precious, even in the very earliest stages of development but, again–nowhere does the Bible command Christians to procreate.

BTW, Onan’s sin was not withdrawl…it was that he refused to perform his duty to provide a male heir for his dead brother Er by having sex relations with the childless widow Tamar. Anyway, are we still under the Mosaic law? We may as well be if you are using this account to suport your view. Read for yourself from your own copy of the Bible:

(Genesis 38:8-10) *8 In view of that Judah said to O′nan: “Have relations with your brother’s wife and perform brother-in-law marriage with her and raise up offspring for your brother.” 9 But O′nan knew that the offspring would not become his; and it occurred that when he did have relations with his brother’s wife he wasted his semen on the earth so as not to give offspring to his brother. 10 Now what he did was bad in the eyes of Jehovah; hence he put him also to death. *

Consider also: The Bible book of Proverbs describes the joy that can result from appropriate sexual intimacies between husband and wife: “Drink water out of your own cistern, and tricklings out of the midst of your own well. … Let your water source prove to be blessed, and rejoice with the wife of your youth, a lovable hind and a charming mountain goat. Let her own breasts intoxicate you at all times. With her love may you be in an ecstasy constantly.”—Proverbs 5:15, 18,19.
Notice “at all times” No mention of need to have children.

Sexual relations between husband and wife are a God-given gift. Sexual relations allow a married couple to express tenderness and affection for each another. So if a couple should decide to exclude the possibility of a pregnancy by using some form of contraception, that is their choice to make, and no one should judge them.—Romans 14:4, 10-13. (of course we are talking of Non-Abortive contraception) It is the CC that says * “Every conjugal act [has] to be open to the transmission of life.” *–not the bible!

Conclusion:
Nowhere does the Bible discuss the use of contraceptives or birth control in marriage, nor does it say that Christians are obliged to produce children. God’s Word leaves the question of family planning to the conscience of each Christian couple. By imposing its ruling about birth control, the Catholic Church has gone “beyond the things that are written.”—1Corinthians 4:6. …Now I am going to address the word por·nei′a and the REAL allowance for divorce. If I can find it on the this forum.
 
I completely understand. I embrace NFP and I listened to tons of talks on the Theology of the Body. I own two copies. Its tedius to read, but I’ve read much of it. A lot of it is about the meaning of different biblical accounts and what they say about the human experience. Its interesting, but as I said rather tedius because its designed to be a series of addresses rather than a book you read from front to cover. All the “Here is the summary of what I said last week. Here is a summery of what I’m going to say. Now I’ll elaborate for maybe a paragraph or two. Now I’ll tell you what I’ll talk about in my next address.” Ahh!!!

Anyway, I’ve found the arguments convincing.

The actual experience of practicing it has been much different than I expected. Even when you mutually have a just reason and mutually agree to abstain, NFP can at times feel like choosing a total rejection of each other rather than a partial rejection.

I still embrace NFP and have no doubt in the Church’s teaching. I also believe that with each challenge to obey God’s law there is an opportunity of spiritual growth. Its not just “Well we must do this.” It forces you to bring it to God and allow him to change your attitudes about sex or children or even about each other. Its not so much that it makes your marriage better, but rather mandates you improve your marriage else it’ll cause you a lot of grief, arguments and feelings of rejection.

I believe I understand more why people embrace contraceptives than I did before. Sadly, it seems some people don’t understand it and decide to just say “No you’re wrong. You’re being selfish, etc.”

I know plenty of people who use contraceptives and have loving marriages. They’re not treating each other like objects. Until I was married, I was completely judgmental of my Dad’s choices. He’s repented of them, but now I think he’s completely amazing. He and Mom were in a good parish and decided to embrace NFP. Honestly, the impression I had was that no one had told them contraceptives were immoral before that. They decided to get pregnant right away and used NFP to conceive my sister. It was a very high risk pregnancy. She was put on bedrest and my parents had to abstain from sexual contact to prevent my mom from going into pre-term labor. She then breastfeed my sister and I’m sure between learning NFP while breastfeeding lead to a lot of confusion. She got pregnant and miscarried twice. She nearly bleed to death during the second miscarriage. They felt they were finally figuring out her chart and were sure they hadn’t used any fertile days, but my Mom interpreted irregular bleeding as her period and thought it was safe. She became pregnant with my youngest brother. This put them back in the boat where they had to abstain completely for months for the sake of my mother’s health. My Mom was told that she was such high risk that it was insanely important she not get pregnant again and that it could kill her. So my Dad really battled with the entire issue and eventually he got a vesectomy. He told me all the people from his parish (conservative parish) had told him this had to be different. This was about her life, not some selfish urge have fewer children. And for crying out loud, the man abstained for months at a time for four years due to the high risk pregnancies.

Sex isn’t evil and people are frankly just crazy when they start acting like the motivation to not want to abstain for months at a time or for the rest of your marriage is somehow selfish and lustful and objectifying of your spouse. Everything taught in presentations of the Theology of the Body act like such sinereos don’t exist. And people who think that taking a step back and having difficulty seems to stem from an attitude that sex is really evil and dirty or at least some insignificant thing you do like going to a movie.

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:
  • the object chosen;
  • the end in view or the intention;
  • the circumstances of the action.
What we must understand is that contraceptives are objectively gravely immoral. The Church has to uphold that. That doesn’t change. The circumstances do not change the objective moral wrongness of the action. But morality is far more than what it going on at the surface. That’s not to rationalize it, but if we judge couples who want only two children and want a big house and use contraceptives with couples who’ve striven to practice NFP faithfully and find their faith shaken because elements like life and death, insanely prolonged periods of abstainence and strain on the marriage due to that is insulting. Its unfair to say that what is going on in the hearts of the first couple is the same thing going on in the hearts of the second couple.
 
Those dissenting theologians and clerics noted by Ed’s history ended up doing a very great disservice and in fact causing a great deal of suffering, hurting women, men, families, and children in the social chaos of the sexual liberation movement that ensued. The evidence of this has been piling up for decades. The effects have been horrible. See Mary Eberstadt’s book Adam and Eve After the Pill for the sad social history and its wreckage.
 
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.”
 
fnr said:
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.
Click to expand...
I’d be willing to bet that most of the 1.2 billion Catholics in the world have never even heard of Humane Vitae.
 
Why do Catholics ignore Humane Vitae? They don’t know about it. I didn’t know about it until I joined CA. As a matter of fact, in 40 years I have never ever heard a priest talk about NFP or birthcontrol in a homily.

Our church does a terrible job at teaching their people. I believe that is why so many people convert out of it. If I wouldn’t have been so grounded in my faith, it would have been easy for a protestant to talk me into joining their church. Quite honestly, I am envious of my protestant brothers and sisters who know their bibles. Don’t get me wrong, I know they don’t have truth, but it seems to me our church could teach us more about scripture so we can at least defend our faith. The common Catholic believes in their Catholic faith, but has no way of defending it to our protestant brothers and sisters.
 
There are plenty of good books to help us learn and understand Church teaching and there is also the Catechism. Having lived through the last 40 years, I watched as fewer and fewer Catholics went to Church, much less listened to the Homilies. Too many, including myself for a short time, but God saved me, decided to take the easy way out. To just ignore the Pope and replace him with what? I invite everyone to read the following:

catholicexchange.com/former-humanae-vitae-dissenter-signs-the-hli-pledge/

I heard a priest recently on Catholic Radio state: “It’s not going to be up to us alone. We can’t do it. The laity needs to do its part as well.” We need strong Catholic communities that are willing to endure sound doctrine, and if we fall, to pick ourselves up, confess our sins, and keep moving toward Christ and not the world.

And the Mainline Protestants aren’t doing well:

usatoday.com/news/religion/2011-02-16-church_growth_15_ST_N.htm

Peace,
Ed
 
Re: Why Do Most Catholics Ignore Humane Vitae?

Because it isn’t enforced, which - because of human nature - gives the impression that it isn’t serious and can therefore safely be ignored.

To give an example: Where I live the police and authorities in general have become so utterly lax on marijuana use that the attitude has changed and people cannot imagine why it is not simply made legal. The consequence has been simple presumption on the part of pot smokers that everyone tolerates or accepts it. Even though it is still illegal, by non-enforcement it has effectively been decriminalized. And I pity those people the next time they find themselves in a place that actually enforces against its use and enforces with serious penalties.

A conscientious child, for another example, might - after a single admonition - have sufficient guilt not to steal from the cookie jar simply because his parents asked him to stop or because it is wrong. Naughty, reckless, ill-disciplined or rebellious children, however, will keep stealing if they perceive there is no consequence to it, and may even begin to harbour a perverse contempt for their parents or perceive them as weak or push-overs, etc.
 
Side note on Onan… this is from Catholic.com’s own tract on birth control
The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus, was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother. “Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also” (Gen. 38:8–10).

The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as “Onanism,” after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as “Sodomy,” after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19).
Click to expand...
-----------catholic.com/tracts/birth-control
 
dj dave #23
BTW, Onan’s sin was not withdrawl
Nowhere does the Bible discuss the use of contraceptives or birth control in marriage
Click to expand...
False.

THE SIN OF ONAN REVISITED, November 1996
By Fr Brian W. Harrison
rtforum.org/lt/lt67.html
“That Onan’s unnatural act as such is condemned as sinful in Gen. 38: 9-10 was an interpretation held by the Fathers and Doctors of the Catholic Church, by the Protestant Reformers, and by nearly all celibate and married theologians of all Christian denominations until the early years of this century, when some exegetes began to approach the text with preconceptions deriving from the sexual decadence of modern Western culture and its exaggerated concern for ‘over-population.’ ” [Pope Pius XI, Encyclical on Christian Marriage, *Casti Connubii (31 December 1930)].

There are some who argue that the severe punishment of God upon Onan was for his failure to fulfill the Levirate law of raising up offspring; however, the punishment for this was specified by God as recorded in the book of Deuteronomy (25:5-10).
The penalty imposed by Mosaic Law was not a death sentence upon the guilty brother but public humiliation–a far cry from execution. This leads us to conclude that the death punishment upon Onan was not for his failure to raise up posterity for his deceased brother, but for the crime of wasting the seed upon the ground–a primitive and vulgar form of contraception. Incidentally, with regards to contraception, many people today are ignorant of the fact that many forms of contraception actually act as an abortifacient–they kill the newly conceived child in some manner.

ONAN
Answer by Fr. John Echert on May, 3, 2008 (EWTN):
“The sin is NOT that of adultery, which is to take the wife of another man. In fact, it was expected and eventually required that if a man died without a son to continue his posterity, his brother was to take his wife after his death as his own and raise up a family by her. So the sin was not in taking his deceased brothers wife but in spilling his seed on the ground. This action is explicit in the text–spilled his seed on the ground–and is the most obvious cause for which he was put to death by God Himself. This is an important text which supports the moral teaching of the Church–and nature–that contraception is mortally sinful.”

Christ gave us His Church with His authority to His Supreme Vicar St Peter to teach us all truths, and His Church gave us the Sacred Scriptures of defined books as His inspired Word.

The teaching against contraception belongs to the natural moral law, and there is implicit condemnation of contraception in the NT – of mageia (using magic) and of pharmakeia (using drugs) in referring to sins against chastity (Gal 5:19-20; Rev 21:8; 22:15). [See Fr John A Hardon, S.J., *The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday 1975, p367].
 
fnr,

Thanks for starting this discussion and the considered opinions you offered throughout.
 
Why Do Most Catholics Ignore Humane Vitae?

The question has many answers. From one side, people have lost the idea of sacred and mystical, and see sexuality as purely recreative activity.

From the other side, actual clergy choose some pretty weird theological approaches, which greatly puzzle not just devoted Catholics, but people of good will as well. The factual teaching of the past (that sex is evil, and can be done only for procreation) has been greatly ignored, as well as it’s influence on Catholic sexual ethics. This especially goes on account of NFP, technique which Church Fathers knew and counted in contraception (St. Augustine).
 
Abu said:
False.

THE SIN OF ONAN REVISITED, November 1996
By Fr Brian W. Harrison
rtforum.org/lt/lt67.html
“That Onan’s unnatural act as such is condemned as sinful in Gen. 38: 9-10 was an interpretation held by the Fathers and Doctors of the Catholic Church, by the Protestant Reformers, and by nearly all celibate and married theologians of all Christian denominations until the early years of this century, when some exegetes began to approach the text with preconceptions deriving from the sexual decadence of modern Western culture and its exaggerated concern for ‘over-population.’ ” [Pope Pius XI, Encyclical on Christian Marriage, *Casti Connubii
Click to expand...
(31 December 1930)].

There are some who argue that the severe punishment of God upon Onan was for his failure to fulfill the Levirate law of raising up offspring; however, the punishment for this was specified by God as recorded in the book of Deuteronomy (25:5-10).
The penalty imposed by Mosaic Law was not a death sentence upon the guilty brother but public humiliation–a far cry from execution. This leads us to conclude that the death punishment upon Onan was not for his failure to raise up posterity for his deceased brother, but for the crime of wasting the seed upon the ground–a primitive and vulgar form of contraception. Incidentally, with regards to contraception, many people today are ignorant of the fact that many forms of contraception actually act as an abortifacient–they kill the newly conceived child in some manner.

ONAN
Answer by Fr. John Echert on May, 3, 2008 (EWTN):
“The sin is NOT that of adultery, which is to take the wife of another man. In fact, it was expected and eventually required that if a man died without a son to continue his posterity, his brother was to take his wife after his death as his own and raise up a family by her. So the sin was not in taking his deceased brothers wife but in spilling his seed on the ground. This action is explicit in the text–spilled his seed on the ground–and is the most obvious cause for which he was put to death by God Himself. This is an important text which supports the moral teaching of the Church–and nature–that contraception is mortally sinful.”

Christ gave us His Church with His authority to His Supreme Vicar St Peter to teach us all truths, and His Church gave us the Sacred Scriptures of defined books as His inspired Word.

The teaching against contraception belongs to the natural moral law, and there is implicit condemnation of contraception in the NT – of mageia (using magic) and of pharmakeia (using drugs) in referring to sins against chastity (Gal 5:19-20; Rev 21:8; 22:15). [See Fr John A Hardon, S.J., *The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday 1975, p367].

Hi, Abu.

If you remember, we already discussed Fr. Harrison’s and Fr. Echert’s approach on subject. According to book of Deuteronomy, it was woman’s duty to report to elders that man doesn’t want to make hair to his deceased brother. Tamar did not do so, meaning she did not see coitus interruptus as issue. She was not punished because of it.

Mageia and pharmakeia are simply referring to magic and magical potions, some of them used to help beget a child. It is not concrete mentioning of contraception.
 
HUMANAE VITAE means of HUMAN LIFE. One sentence in it says every act of intercourse is to be open to the transmission of human life. ONE sentence, the only one most people seem to know and even think the whole encyclical was about it- even one archbishop in the USA translated the title as ON BIRTH CONTROL!
Place Pope Paul V1’s entire letter against the famous dissentIng report of his commission and the evidence since then. The huge increase of birth prevention and the damage done by abortion, genitaltiy as “personal and private” the huge increase in abortion which bananas on condoms in the public schools was supposed to curb- divorces, separations, , destroyed souls and women’s capacity to bear children (sterlised by birth control and abortions gone awry). and the emotiional pain from abortions for the mothers and fathers who suffer emotionally. To me it is Pope 100, "World, Flesh and Devil 0
 
HOLY_POOH_FAN said:
HUMANAE VITAE means of HUMAN LIFE. One sentence in it says every act of intercourse is to be open to the transmission of human life. ONE sentence, the only one most people seem to know and even think the whole encyclical was about it- even one archbishop in the USA translated the title as ON BIRTH CONTROL!
Place Pope Paul V1’s entire letter against the famous dissentIng report of his commission and the evidence since then. The huge increase of birth prevention and the damage done by abortion, genitaltiy as “personal and private” the huge increase in abortion which bananas on condoms in the public schools was supposed to curb- divorces, separations, , destroyed souls and women’s capacity to bear children (sterlised by birth control and abortions gone awry). and the emotiional pain from abortions for the mothers and fathers who suffer emotionally. To me it is Pope 100, "World, Flesh and Devil 0
Click to expand...
First off, the majority report was not dissenting- the Pope asked for theological opinion. He allowed them to express their view. And in many cases, majority report was more humble and respective of Catholic moral tradition then minority report.

Contraception is simply technique od birth control, and you can’t blame it for people making mistakes. I mean, ultra-traditional Catholics blame Humanae Vitae for abortions and emotional suffering since it allowed NFP. At the end, it’s all about perspective- what you wish to see and what it really is.
 
@Chrono13
In terms of the Onan story how can you quote laws that were not in place at that point? The Onan story occurred in Genesis and your saying they were bound by laws that were not even established yet? The only law there was too follow were the couple direct commands given by God, and natural law.
 
For the same reasons they make payments each month to Medical Insurance Companies that pay for abortions.
Economics 101
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top