Why Do Most Catholics Ignore Humane Vitae?

[Dominique1234]

No, what you probably saw was what is called a “Doubtful Peak”. It also happens if you get stressed around ovulation. If you were temping, you would only see one shift at the second “ovulation”. (That is why temping is a good idea if you can, even if you use Billings.) If your cycles are wonky, this may help.

woomb.org/omrrca/vigil/fertilityDisorders2.html

(WOOMB is great.)

Oh, okay thanks. I’ll let my wife know! Thank you for the resources. God bless you!

 

[Chrono13]

I have no idea of your point here. The marital embrace cannot result in conception every single time. That is how God ordered it. Engaging in the act while not ovulating is not only unitive is still ordered correctly. That is toward procreation.

What I suggest is one specific line of thought which was never taken seriously by Humanae Vitae’s understanding of nature.

We believe nature is controlled by God. We don’t think children are product of chance. If this is the premise of natural law, NFP is useless form of birth control. You will not evade conception by abstinance during fertile period, if you intend to relate during infertile (Nives paradox). It is God’s will what will happen, when, why and with which consequences.

That is absurd. They do not intend to destroy anything.

Sure they do- they intend to destroy the semen before it has a chance to connect with fertile egg. This is practical way of saying how NFP works.

 

[Chrono13]

Read Humanae Vitae, read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Do your own research if you don’t believe what we are TELLING you the Church teaches. Read from the sources that will actually lead you in the right direction.

Is it too hard for you to understand that sex in marriage is not JUST about procreation? You’ve obviously skipped a whole BUNCH of paragraphs to lead to this conclusion. Read what the Catechism says on the matter. There you will find your answers.

God bless

Maybe we are not understanding each other very well. I have read Humanae Vitae and I understand what Catechism of Catholic Church suggests. I wish to talk about their claims and how they reflect Catholic history and spiritual reality we line in.

I am not suggesting that sex is just about procreation, I am suggesting Catholic history treated it as such, and that people today are somewhat mild in expressing that truth.

 

[Chrono13]

Augustine claimed no such thing. This is what you are getting out of it, but it is misconstrued. If you call yourself open minded, then why are you so closed minded as to what you think Augustine meant by what he said?

You wouldn’t find truth if it hit you in the face. Re read this thread thoroughly. All the answers are there. You seem to refuse to see them.

Here is the writing of St. Augustine…
St. Augustine: On Marriage and Concupiscence

But in the married, as these things are desirable and praiseworthy, so the others are to be tolerated, that no lapse occur into damnable sins; that is, into fornications and adulteries. To escape this evil, even such embraces of husband and wife as have not procreation for their object, but serve an overbearing concupiscence, are permitted, so far as to be within range of forgiveness,(1) though not prescribed by way of commandment: and the married pair are enjoined not to defraud one the other, lest Satan should tempt them by reason of their incontinence. For thus says the Scripture: “Let the husband render unto the wife her due: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other; except it be with consent for a time, that ye may have leisure for prayer; and then come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.” Now in a case where permission must be given, it cannot by any means be contended that there is not some amount of sin.(2) Since, however, the cohabitation for the purpose of procreating children, which must be admitted to be the proper end of marriage, is not sinful, what is it which the apostle allows to be permissible, but that married persons, when they have not the gift of continence, may require one from the other the due of the flesh - and that not from a wish for procreation, but for the pleasure of concupiscence? This gratification incurs not the imputation of guilt on account of marriage, but receives permission on account of marriage. This, therefore, must be reckoned among the praises of matrimony; that, on its own account, it makes pardonable that which does not essentially appertain to itself. For the nuptial embrace, which subserves the demands of concupiscence, is so effected as not to impede the child-bearing, which is the end and aim of marriage. (3)

(1) St. Augustine declares that sexual intercourse between married couple in which they do not desire child to be begotten is sinful, yet in range of forgivness.

(2) St. Augustine declares that, on the account of apostle’s permission, sex in marriage must have something sinful in itself, since purely moral things do not need permission.

(3) This one is important. The praise of the martimony is that it makes intercourse done without desire of begetting pardonable (it is still sinful, since sex is only for procreation, and lack of desire to procreate means couple is not doing it in accordance with moral law). But nuptial embrace must be done without anything to impede the child-bearing, which, at least in case of the named saint, counts any birth regulation.

 

[HOLY_POOH_FAN]

Individual bishops and theologians, most of whom had both roles in history have made mistakes about diffrent teachings- Augustine said marital intercourse was a venial sin, Aquinas did not accept the Immaculate Conception. Part was ignorance of the process of conception and development of the human soul and other errors. ONE looks at the TRADITION, the ebb and flow, up and down as topics were discussed and the TRUTH came out of the process, finally decided officially. Take it easy on each of us folks, whether not sure of a specific teaching’s genealogy or so sure of it you insult others. PEACE and ABOVE ALL THINGS CHARITY to re-quote the old line.

 

[aragonjohn1]

Here is the writing of St. Augustine…
St. Augustine: On Marriage and Concupiscence

But in the married, as these things are desirable and praiseworthy, so the others are to be tolerated, that no lapse occur into damnable sins; that is, into fornications and adulteries. To escape this evil, even such embraces of husband and wife as have not procreation for their object, but serve an overbearing concupiscence, are permitted, so far as to be within range of forgiveness,(1) though not prescribed by way of commandment: and the married pair are enjoined not to defraud one the other, lest Satan should tempt them by reason of their incontinence. For thus says the Scripture: “Let the husband render unto the wife her due: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other; except it be with consent for a time, that ye may have leisure for prayer; and then come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.” Now in a case where permission must be given, it cannot by any means be contended that there is not some amount of sin.(2) Since, however, the cohabitation for the purpose of procreating children, which must be admitted to be the proper end of marriage, is not sinful, what is it which the apostle allows to be permissible, but that married persons, when they have not the gift of continence, may require one from the other the due of the flesh - and that not from a wish for procreation, but for the pleasure of concupiscence? This gratification incurs not the imputation of guilt on account of marriage, but receives permission on account of marriage. This, therefore, must be reckoned among the praises of matrimony; that, on its own account, it makes pardonable that which does not essentially appertain to itself. For the nuptial embrace, which subserves the demands of concupiscence, is so effected as not to impede the child-bearing, which is the end and aim of marriage. (3)

(1) St. Augustine declares that sexual intercourse between married couple in which they do not desire child to be begotten is sinful, yet in range of forgivness.

(2) St. Augustine declares that, on the account of apostle’s permission, sex in marriage must have something sinful in itself, since purely moral things do not need permission.

(3) This one is important. The praise of the martimony is that it makes intercourse done without desire of begetting pardonable (it is still sinful, since sex is only for procreation, and lack of desire to procreate means couple is not doing it in accordance with moral law). But nuptial embrace must be done without anything to impede the child-bearing, which, at least in case of the named saint, counts any birth regulation.

SHALOM
GOD BLESS

 

[kalbertone]

Before God said to be fruitful & multiply,he sais It is Not Good For Man To Be Alone. Hence Marriage is much more than begetting children. The Human behavioural sciences show that in himans the first purpose of sexuality is the pair bonding.When this is established,children can be born into a loving realtionship as sex bonds the couple & among other things helps them grow in love. Most of the times when the male deposits his seed in intercourse procreation does not happen. Animals do not marry or form lifelong commitments,humans do.If humans were there only to procreate,then a man would be allowed to divorce his wife after child rearing & marry a younger one to beget some more children. The female clitoris responsible for pleasure is not in any way tied to procreation. There may come times where a couple need to space or limit children due to serious reasons.To intervene(like Man does with medicine & nature) is nothing wrong morally.Augustine did it himself(hypoicrite) when he was living with a woman & having relations.He himself practiced avoiding conception. Now burning with concupiscence he has to devise nonsense that plaqued the institutionals clerical celibate hierarchy for centuries with absolute rubbish

 

[godisgood77]

Before God said to be fruitful & multiply,he sais It is Not Good For Man To Be Alone. Hence Marriage is much more than begetting children. The Human behavioural sciences show that in himans the first purpose of sexuality is the pair bonding.When this is established,children can be born into a loving realtionship as sex bonds the couple & among other things helps them grow in love. Most of the times when the male deposits his seed in intercourse procreation does not happen. Animals do not marry or form lifelong commitments,humans do.If humans were there only to procreate,then a man would be allowed to divorce his wife after child rearing & marry a younger one to beget some more children. The female clitoris responsible for pleasure is not in any way tied to procreation. There may come times where a couple need to space or limit children due to serious reasons.To intervene(like Man does with medicine & nature) is nothing wrong morally.Augustine did it himself(hypoicrite) when he was living with a woman & having relations.He himself practiced avoiding conception. Now burning with concupiscence he has to devise nonsense that plaqued the institutionals clerical celibate hierarchy for centuries with absolute rubbish

AMEN brother!

 

[HOLY_POOH_FAN]

alberton - spelling? is at it again. St Augustine was a Manichean and sex addict- read his story- and only became a Catholic Christian later after struggling with his addiction. The current teaching is the Church places the two goods of marriage side by side, not primary-procreation and secondary mutual support. The Church is a living organsm, and has grown since its OT laws and rules about various aspects of morality but held on to the core, central teaching- marriage is for kids and support/support and kids. The pleasure is men and women’s to enjoy genitality and encourage its proper use. God “invented” that pleasure, some act as if it was a late discovery and secret!

 

[Chrono13]

alberton - spelling? is at it again. St Augustine was a Manichean and sex addict- read his story- and only became a Catholic Christian later after struggling with his addiction. The current teaching is the Church places the two goods of marriage side by side, not primary-procreation and secondary mutual support. The Church is a living organsm, and has grown since its OT laws and rules about various aspects of morality but held on to the core, central teaching- marriage is for kids and support/support and kids. The pleasure is men and women’s to enjoy genitality and encourage its proper use. God “invented” that pleasure, some act as if it was a late discovery and secret!

But he took his Manichean roots and frustrations into Catholicism, and influenced it in a very distinctive way. Also, bear in mind that Augustine is not the only Church Father who expressed the idea that sex can be practiced only for procreation. As a matter of fact, most early theologians will at least once suggest such premise.

The current teaching also suggests that in the past, everything was the same as today. The clergy themselves speak about “constant teaching”. Yet, when these things come to mind, all of the sudden the Church “grows” and “comes slowly to perfection”. Not impressive to layman, not to mention secular society.

 

[HOLY_POOH_FAN]

The basic teaching is constant from GENESIS - a man and woman are companions for mutual support and to make babies. Flows naturallly from Natural Law, the design of the bodies, the mutual attraction of the M and W and the pleasure of the genital action in context appropriately. The growth and getting it right coincides with the gradual understanding of the biology, the science - such as the chemistry of the fertile period. Realise it was only in the mid-19th century medicine discovered the importance and role of the egg provided by the female to conception. There should be no wonder in the slightest that a complicated moral teaching that requires the development of knowledge to affirm, and confirm, that God has a plan for each human, rooted in our Nature as female and male. as was clear from Genesis theologically and morally. Of course there will be shades of the negative as with some of Augustines’ ideas and then as far out as the C of E which was the first Protestant denomination to break with the biblical ban on intentional birth prevention. See where that got us today in so-called “liberal” Christian thought as also with non-Orthodox Jewish deviation from biblical and Natural Law teaching on life from “erection to resurrection” as the wag put it…

 

[Chrono13]

The basic teaching is constant from GENESIS - a man and woman are companions for mutual support and to make babies. Flows naturallly from Natural Law, the design of the bodies, the mutual attraction of the M and W and the pleasure of the genital action in context appropriately. The growth and getting it right coincides with the gradual understanding of the biology, the science - such as the chemistry of the fertile period. Realise it was only in the mid-19th century medicine discovered the importance and role of the egg provided by the female to conception. There should be no wonder in the slightest that a complicated moral teaching that requires the development of knowledge to affirm, and confirm, that God has a plan for each human, rooted in our Nature as female and male. as was clear from Genesis theologically and morally. Of course there will be shades of the negative as with some of Augustines’ ideas and then as far out as the C of E which was the first Protestant denomination to break with the biblical ban on intentional birth prevention. See where that got us today in so-called “liberal” Christian thought as also with non-Orthodox Jewish deviation from biblical and Natural Law teaching on life from “erection to resurrection” as the wag put it…

The constant teaching regarding human relations is the same, but we are not talking about them. We talk about intercourse, and how things connected to it were understood in broader context.

Also, people today are ignoring what Augustine thought of sexuality, and his reasons regarding the nature of intimate relations. Just observe how many people in this discussion suggested that named saint is some kind of “theologist of the body” as if he would approve of today’s approach to sexuality.

 

[davidv]

The constant teaching regarding human relations is the same, but we are not talking about them. We talk about intercourse, and how things connected to it were understood in broader context.

Also, people today are ignoring what Augustine thought of sexuality, and his reasons regarding the nature of intimate relations. Just observe how many people in this discussion suggested that named saint is some kind of “theologist of the body” as if he would approve of today’s approach to sexuality.

If what Augustine thought of sexuality is wrong, it should be ignored. Why should we believe Augustine on this particular matter?