- Status
C
Chrono13
Guest
Sorry, no chance
Body was not that interesting to Church Fathers. They forbid contraception on account that only *natural reason * for sex is procreation. Which led to idea that only valid intercourse is the one with *intention *of begetting. And that concluded in forbidding tracking of woman’s fertility circle for birth control.Paul speaks of Hebrew * moral law * existing as ration in pagans. But as we have witnessed in case of NFP, some ratios are different then the others (as well as interpretations of nature which come from them).
Since I look things through mysticism, and not naturalism, I don’t need nature to forbid it. There is nothing “un-natural” when couple has sex during menstrual period, yet this is forbidden as much as homosexuality in the Bible.
I confess, this is not as solid as one would wish, but on certain fields it has more sense then “it’s not procreative” logic.
N
Nate13
Guest
That makes very little sense to claim that considering when you look at how Paul describes marriage in Ephesians. The unitive meaning was of incredible importance as well because it was supposed to bring the two together as “one body”. The Church Fathers went wrong in that they did not understand how a woman’s body was created and the fact that a woman was not always fertile. Based in our biology which we are aware of now we know that not every act is as procreative as the others. It’s unlikely they knew anything about this.Sorry, no chance
If they believed every act was fertile and the same, it would then make sense to claim every act must be committed with the intent to procreate or at least ambivalence.
Why don’t you read Veritatis Splendor and the Pope’s words on the passage.
Having sex during menstruation is not considered immoral because the Church has deemed that law was based on custom and culture and it being “unclean”, not moral Truth. Your grounds for opposing homosexual acts are as weak as your reasoning for the Onan story
I also fail to see how “mysticism” excludes natural law. You can’t claim something is a perversion if you don’t have an objective starting point to compare it to.Read Veritatis Splendor…
A
Abu
Guest
“Catholic Searcher” is a misnomer – “Catholic besmircher” would be factual = blacken, dishonour, discredit, sully, besmear – for that is what this poster does to Catholicism – all without any facts whatsoever. He never learns the truths he has been shown for truth seems not to matter to him.
Never learns
Certainly 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]
The ancient Egyptians and the pagan Cicero, before Christ, acknowledged the natural moral law: Cicero (died 43 B.C.) wrote in De Republica, 3.22: “True law is right reason in agreement with nature. It is of universal application, unchanging, everlasting. We cannot be freed from it by Senate or people. This law is not one thing at Rome and another at Athens, but is eternal and immutable, valid for all nations and for all times. God is the Author of it, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient to it is abandoning his true self and denying his own nature.”
As St. Augustine notes, “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.” [45]
45. St. August., De coniug. adult., lib. II, n. 12, Gen, XXXVIII, 8-10.
Reality of truth is what faithful Catholics accept, assent to, and offer.
St. John Chrysostom also affirmed the sacrament of love in marriage and acknowledged the unitive purpose:
“The procreation of children in marriage is the ‘heritage’ and ‘reward’ of the Lord; a blessing of God (cf. Psalm 127:3). It is the natural result of the act of sexual intercourse in marriage, which is a sacred union through which God Himself joins the two together into ‘one flesh’ (Genesis 1-2, Matthew 19, Mark 10, Ephesians 5, et. al.). The procreation of children is not in itself the sole purpose of marriage, but a marriage without the desire for children, and the prayer to God to bear and nurture them, is contrary to the ‘sacrament of love.’” 19
Note:
19. St. John Chrysostom, Homily on Ephesians 20, PG.
forum.ancient-future.net/index.php?showtopic=315
T
Tonrey
Guest
I am posting for the first time here. I am a Catholic from my birth and baptism from now until forever. A thousand years atleast of Irish `Catholism run through my veins I am also married, and the father of six beautiful children, thanks be to God! I too, though, have questioned the Church’s teachings on contraception… We march to the beat of Rome, but there is dissention in the ranks, as is obvious from the use of contraception within our Church.
We are a Catholic, loving family. We are also in a townhouse in metropolitan area; we cannot afford a single family home, and we’ve ran out of room. ]We are in debt like the rest of America, and our kids go to public school, because we can’t afford Caholic education. Unlike when I was a child, when Catholic teaching/education was available to Catholic families; big or small… Now, it’s about who can afford it, and I’d guess half the children in Catholic Schools are not Catholic! But that’s a different story.
We’ve always been open to life, as is obvious; baby every ‘even’ year from 2000, but if we had another, i think my wife might be commited. The last child the most difficult… i’m soon to be 44, my wife 43 in May; the thought of another is beyond, beyond… but there is that chance, and I would love a seventh as much as the first,.
I ws reluctant to post my User Name here, because some of my best Catholic friends may see but I’m being completely honest tonight. I believe, and my wife disagrees, that abstinence in marriage, is the same as artificial contraception. Both prevent life, and that’s what union in the sexual act is all about. My father was diagnosed with multiple myloma at the age of 40, when i was two years old, in 1970. My younger sister was a newborn. So, he was a father of six himself (twins died in utero earlier) The doctors gave him six months to live and he lived for 11 more. My parents had no more children after my younger sister. I never asked my mother about her ‘relationship’ with my father after his diagnosis, but if they used contraception and commited grave mortal sin, prior to NFP?, and he is doomed to hell, then let me follow in his footsteps, because he was the holiest man I’ve ever known.
There have been instances in our marriage, rare, where we have used contraception. Our anniversary, during the fertile time, where we used contraception. We confessed it later, and haven’t since, But in the majority of those confessions!, the priests have told me what my wife and I do is between Me and Her and GOD. and these are veteran priests!
personally, if this isn’t already, i find it unique that the Church teaches that sexual union is ok when the potential for life is there… yet when the wife, isn’t fertile, i see a contradiction, especially, and this is way too much, when the female, in my experience, prefers union during the fertile period… It’s as if the Church says, you may conjugate, however, if you really want to conjugate, but don’t want the possibility of more children, then you should refrain.
In our marriage, again, too much information, I’ve found the ‘fertile season’ to be a wedge between my wife and me. I’ve found this time together to be brief, and not what Christ would want in our marriage. Because, the infertile seasonn is not much better, with 1 or 3 child sneaking in our bed every other night, fertile season or not. Yet we do as we’re told and end up frustrated with each other…
I would love to talk to a priest to help us through this… and from the ones i’ve met, they are willing… but one has one view and one has the other… read Pope Paul the 6ths take on this same…
Again, we march to the beat of Rome, but may question…
I am also married, and the father of six beautiful children, thanks be to God! I too, though, have questioned the Church’s teachings on contraception… We march to the beat of Rome, but there is dissention in the ranks, as is obvious from the use of contraception within our Church.We are a Catholic, loving family. We are also in a townhouse in metropolitan area; we cannot afford a single family home, and we’ve ran out of room. ]We are in debt like the rest of America, and our kids go to public school, because we can’t afford Caholic education. Unlike when I was a child, when Catholic teaching/education was available to Catholic families; big or small… Now, it’s about who can afford it, and I’d guess half the children in Catholic Schools are not Catholic! But that’s a different story.
We’ve always been open to life, as is obvious; baby every ‘even’ year from 2000, but if we had another, i think my wife might be commited. The last child the most difficult… i’m soon to be 44, my wife 43 in May; the thought of another is beyond, beyond… but there is that chance, and I would love a seventh as much as the first,.
I ws reluctant to post my User Name here, because some of my best Catholic friends may see but I’m being completely honest tonight. I believe, and my wife disagrees, that abstinence in marriage, is the same as artificial contraception. Both prevent life, and that’s what union in the sexual act is all about. My father was diagnosed with multiple myloma at the age of 40, when i was two years old, in 1970. My younger sister was a newborn. So, he was a father of six himself (twins died in utero earlier) The doctors gave him six months to live and he lived for 11 more. My parents had no more children after my younger sister. I never asked my mother about her ‘relationship’ with my father after his diagnosis, but if they used contraception and commited grave mortal sin, prior to NFP?, and he is doomed to hell, then let me follow in his footsteps, because he was the holiest man I’ve ever known.
There have been instances in our marriage, rare, where we have used contraception. Our anniversary, during the fertile time, where we used contraception. We confessed it later, and haven’t since, But in the majority of those confessions!, the priests have told me what my wife and I do is between Me and Her and GOD. and these are veteran priests!
personally, if this isn’t already, i find it unique that the Church teaches that sexual union is ok when the potential for life is there… yet when the wife, isn’t fertile, i see a contradiction, especially, and this is way too much, when the female, in my experience, prefers union during the fertile period… It’s as if the Church says, you may conjugate, however, if you really want to conjugate, but don’t want the possibility of more children, then you should refrain.
In our marriage, again, too much information, I’ve found the ‘fertile season’ to be a wedge between my wife and me. I’ve found this time together to be brief, and not what Christ would want in our marriage. Because, the infertile seasonn is not much better, with 1 or 3 child sneaking in our bed every other night, fertile season or not. Yet we do as we’re told and end up frustrated with each other…
I would love to talk to a priest to help us through this… and from the ones i’ve met, they are willing… but one has one view and one has the other… read Pope Paul the 6ths take on this same…
Again, we march to the beat of Rome, but may question…
A
Abu
Guest
Many blessings on you and you family, Tonrey. Keep the faith and continue to follow Christ – He does not fail anyone.
- Your wife is right as the late, revered, Fr Stephen Torraco affirms:
Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on June 19, 2006 (EWTN):
“If you want an objective reason as to why contraception is a serious evil and NFP is not only morally justifiable but also praiseworthy, that objective reason is this: with contraception, there is the deliberate rupture of the intimate link between the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act. With NFP, there is no such rupture. Even in the case in which a couple, **using NFP, resorts to the infertile period for marital relations so as to avoid pregnancy (assuming for the sake of argument, for serious reasons) there is no such objective rupture of that link precisely because there is nothing there to contracept. **You need to understand that morality is not simply about results. It is also about our actions in and of themselves. The argument to which you refer (the results are the same with NFP and contraception) is purely utilitarian and does not take into consideration the entire human act. Furthermore, as I have pointed out several times, the condoning of contraception quite logically is also the condoning of genital activity with anyone or anything, as well as of in vitro fertilization and cloning. The Church’s teaching on contraception does not at all depend on faith. It is a clear and rational defense of the very essence of civilization.”
[The late Fr Torraco was the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church (SSMTC), and answered questions for Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network].
- To question the Church’s infallible doctrine against contraception is to question Christ Himself as He gave Her His authority to bind and loose through His Magisterium in St Peter, until the end of the world.
- The priests who do not explain this, explain the absolute necessity of forming consciences to assent to and act upon the doctrines of the Church, are either poorly formed, or dissenting, on which Bl John Paul II has taught clearly: “It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a ‘good Catholic’ and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of the bishops of the United States and elsewhere.” [Meeting with US Bishops at Our Lady Queen of Angels Minor Seminary, Los Angeles, Sept 16, 1987].
This website enables the worthwhile use of NBR through NaPro Technology for those who need assistance: fertilitycare.com.au/?page_id=7
C
Chrono13
Guest
Church Fathers did some very unusual things when interpreting St. Paul, so they lost his points completely. St. Augustine, for example, said Paul allowed marriage altough it contains sinful sex (from his point of view, even marital sexuality is sinful). These unique approach has nothing to do with woman’s biology. They did not see sex as we do, and have concluded completely other nature (and it’s laws).
They didn’t see woman’s infertility as an obstacle to desire begetting. Based on their logic, altough sex is only for procreation, couple doesn’t have to do anything physically to rise the chance of begetting. Sufficient is to desire a child, and intercourse would be natural.
I remember reading it years ago. I might do so again for the sake of this discussion. However, if it contained something of influence, I would probably remember it better
Which is very weak, since Ezekiel 18:5-9 adds it to moral law, not custom. Based from this, it seems that such intercourse if overindulgence in flesh which is against God’s will. Same can go to homosexuality.
I don’t believe so, and I am more then sure that people reading this discussion see the weight of my arguments. Especially the reasoning of the Onan story.Your grounds for opposing homosexual acts are as weak as your reasoning for the Onan story
This starting point can simply be that God created man and woman to have each other. Principles of natural law, ie. that homosexuality is wrong because it is unprocreative, are not required for prohibition.
H
HOLY_POOH_FAN
Guest
I said dissenting report, did not specify which, obviously it was made to him before he wrote the final document, maybe I could have used a different phrase. A moot opinion either way, The reference to ultra-traditional Cathilics is really irrelevant to the overall topic, why would they object to a biological function obviously designed by God, and criticise it if thinking humans use it with the discipline it involves.
MOST IMPORTANTLY;Too much comment here about Onan. The encyclical was a prophetic warning about the logical line of going from sexual activity as private, personal, recreational to diseases, abortion and ruined lives and marriages. THE SECULAR culture denies that. HERE this site is being used so far to parse Onanism, and NOT deal with the BIG PICTURE which is the Church’s full, complete and PROPHETIC message.
C
Chrono13
Guest
By denying the person’s right to ask questions, you deny the mission of evangelization and apostolic quest of spreading the gospel.
I asked you why Tamar did not preform her duty, according to logic of respected friars you quoted for your argument. If you don’t know an answer, that does not mean you should feel threated or insulted.
Which returns us to question why Church Fathers claimed NFP is against nature, while Humanae Vitae claims it is natural. Which side has the truth in heart? Who is right, and who is wrong? If natural law is so accessible to reason, it seems everybody could grasp the same ethics.
Of course, the moment we ask these questions, the natural law as Catholic mainstream sees it, greatly loses it’s grasp in discussion. Just the fact that Church leaders themselves can’t decide what is natural and what is not makes things much more spicy.
But you will have to agree, Cicero had different view of nature, and concluded different ethical approaches to various topics.
St. Augustine also believed tracking woman’s fertility circle is preventing conception, and is form of Onan’s sin.
Too bad his beliefs didn’t catch up with the rest of Christian Church. ;(
C
Chrono13
Guest
Since Church Fathers claimed tracking woman’s fertility circle is form of contraception (it was not created for birth control, and practicing it is abuse of nature). Ultra-traditionalists simply keep the prohibition in more authentic state then followers of Humanae Vitae.
However, they also deny the real reasons why contraception was forbidden in the past (namely, the idea that every sexual act is somewhat sinful).
What can I say? It is really a matter of perception. As mentioned, ultra-traditionalists claim Humanae Vitae is responsible to a degree for such state of the secular world. They wouldn’t be impressed by your ideas of “BIG PICTURE”, since they deny you are giving people full/complete/prophetic message.
I don’t agree with them, by the way. But I understand how this influences people in ignoring the Church document.
C
choose_to_love
Guest
@chrono: I know we’ve been down this road before, but can you provide a church father other than St. A who mentioned tracking fertility as being the same as contraception or otherwise illicit? As you know, I don’t think St. A ever actually addressed this issue directly, only in reference to the Manichees, which is a completly different context. I suggest that a fair statement would be that “based on other things that he wrote, it is my opinion that St. A would oppse use of NFP”.
J
jimcintosh
Guest
I would have to question the word “ignore”. I don’t think that most Catholics ignore the encyclical. I think that they have thoughtfully considered it and rejected it.
It is true, I suppose, that some have an improper education in this matter, but I think that most do know what the church teaches in this area and have considered it.
Why do most Catholics not attend Mass on Holy Days of Obligation? Do you think that they don’t know that they are obliged to attend? How about Sunday Mass? Confession?
Like it or not, authority is not what it once was. Blind obedience can no longer be expected. Catholics are educated now, and in a mode which has taught them to question authority – whether that authority is the pope saying that all sexual acts must be in the furtherance of procreation or the president saying that we should have national health insurance. Educated people listen to what they are told and then question it.
Whether it’s support of the death penalty, the use of artificial contraception, the support of same-gender marriage, or whatever, these are people who have heard the church’s teaching, considered it, and rejected it.
Instead of asking why most Catholics ignore Humane Vitae, the question is why most Catholics have rejected what Humane Vitae teaches. What about it needs to be better explained? Is a more compelling case possible? What do we have to take into account from the life experience of all those Catholics that we have not considered fully?
It is true, I suppose, that some have an improper education in this matter, but I think that most do know what the church teaches in this area and have considered it.
Why do most Catholics not attend Mass on Holy Days of Obligation? Do you think that they don’t know that they are obliged to attend? How about Sunday Mass? Confession?
Like it or not, authority is not what it once was. Blind obedience can no longer be expected. Catholics are educated now, and in a mode which has taught them to question authority – whether that authority is the pope saying that all sexual acts must be in the furtherance of procreation or the president saying that we should have national health insurance. Educated people listen to what they are told and then question it.
Whether it’s support of the death penalty, the use of artificial contraception, the support of same-gender marriage, or whatever, these are people who have heard the church’s teaching, considered it, and rejected it.
Instead of asking why most Catholics ignore Humane Vitae, the question is why most Catholics have rejected what Humane Vitae teaches. What about it needs to be better explained? Is a more compelling case possible? What do we have to take into account from the life experience of all those Catholics that we have not considered fully?
C
Chrono13
Guest
Sorry, but the quote of St. Augustine is quite clear. Followers of Mani believed begetting the children is capturing souls in flesh, and thus practiced contraception to avoid that outcome. However, he doesn’t attack this belief but consequences of it- mainly that they do not desire procreation which is ,as he says, “the sole excuse for sexuality”.
These words, “sole excuse”, reveal his true point and belief. To him, all sexuality is somewhat sinful (unless done purely for procreation, but he denied this as well) however neccessary for species to continue existance. This led him to belief only moral and natural practice of sexuality is when pair wishes to concieve a child.
Every Church Father sharing his thought (and most of them have) also denies NFP, since (as Humanae Vitae itself acknowledges) the pair engages in sex with clear desire to avoid procreation. To Church Fathers, desire for this itself is bad, and each action done in order to achieve this goal is also bad.
C
Chrono13
Guest
Interesting and powerful questions.
C
cemiller
Guest
I don’t know if most ignore Humane Vitae, or if a lot of them just don’t understand it… I know I’m new to the Church, but me and my wife follow it, so there are at least 2 that don’t ignore it 
N
Nate13
Guest
Lust within marriage is probably pretty common among most so although Augustine went overboard and considered sex for any reason other than for procreation to be sinful (although he did specify clearly only venially) he was right in that many times a couple would fail to live up to the image and likeness of Christ and his Church. Unless you can provide some evidence as to how Augustine came about his views everything your saying is pure conjecture, which seems to be what you like to do. I would also point out who St. Augustine was preaching too, which you already know, and the fact that Augustine had a sinful history that probably affected how he wrote on the topic.
Yeah but he is kind of weird in that a couple who has sex and is ambivalent to having a child or not and is having sex seeking the unitive aspect of sex is considered sinful but only venially. It’s important to note that Augustine never considered sex that focused more on the unitive aspect that was ambivalent to the procreative part to be mortally sinful as long as it was completed in the appropriate manner. You could actually argue he was not that far off from what we have today. He just considered something venially sinful that we don’t consider sinful at all. It could also be he did not recognize there as being any legitimate reason to avoid, leaving every act not intended to be procreative as sinful. He certainly never considered continence intrinsically evil.
In my opinion denying natural law exists is close to being on par with denying the True Presence in the Eucharist. Its essential to Catholicism. JPII lays out his thoughts on the matter pretty clearly in that encyclical.I remember reading it years ago. I might do so again for the sake of this discussion. However, if it contained something of influence, I would probably remember it better
Lol if your going to claim all of those were considered moral evils don’t forget to include eating up on a mountain
Its clear the laws against touch a menstruating woman were a matter of cleanliness.Haha that story sways no one either way. Those who are for contraception read it as fits what they want, and people against contraception read it as fits what they want. If we look at almost 2000 years of constant teaching from some of the greatest minds in Church history its clear what that story means. The Holy Spirit is pretty worthless if your really going to claim it took 2000 years before you came along to tell us all what the story really meansI don’t believe so, and I am more then sure that people reading this discussion see the weight of my arguments. Especially the reasoning of the Onan story.
The starting point of natural law is that we were created in the image and likeness of God. Human nature is describing what that means. Passages like Gen 2:24, Eph 5:21-33, and others give us great insight into what that looks like. JPII’s book the Theology of the Body is solely devoted to diving into exactly that.
N
Nate13
Guest
I believe I can only conclude your calling Pope Pius XI and probably JPII as well a liar.
From Casti Cannubii
I’m sure your aware he quotes Augustine in this encyclical multiple times including this from him:
He didn’t believe Augustine’s words contradicted what he was teaching so why do you?
M
marthagreys
Guest
Responding directly to the original post, I think I can answer why many Catholics ignore humane vitae. They are never taught the correct Catholic teachings. In my RCIA class, roughly 12 years ago, we were taught by 4 lay people through the whole process - 3 women, and 1 man. One of the women, a divorced/remarried person who had never gotten an annulment, told us that the teachings were outdated and we wouldn’t be covering them in the class. Another of the women, a young, single adult, said that the church’s teachings were ‘unrealistic’ and we should just use our own judgement. The third woman said that every Catholic struggles with something, whether it be sexual/birth control, keeping the Sabbath, or whatever and not to be too hard on ourselves. The male instructor was a pharmacist who said that it is a personal decision. It wasn’t until just a few years ago, that I even found out that the church had a strict teaching that isn’t negotiable. That taught me to be very careful about judging people for why they do/don’t follow certain teachings.
N
Nate13
Guest
Yes, but some people think your judging them if you even try to inform them of the teaching. I think most people know the Church teaches contraception is wrong but they just see it as advice, not something that is a binding teaching. There are still plenty of people who will claim you don’t have to follow it to be in communion with the Church.
C
Chrono13
Guest
Problems are things he got wrong, not what he got right
This is not so. Most people know Augustine’s background. The problem is, when decisions were made, nobody took it as important part of the story. That Augustine’s sinful past led him in belief sex is sinful is dangerously close to premise that he forbid contraception on this ground as well.
Yet, it was still considered sinful and it was expected from couples to feel remorse if they engaged in sexuality without exclusive desire to beget a child.
While open to discussion, it seems disagreeing with Augustinian thought could put you in trouble with bishops of the past.
Actually, his entire ethical system and natural law is different. He does not recognize the term “open to life” since intention is all what it counts in his world.
He is practical, as I am
He does not see problem in continence, but in deliberate intercourse on infertile days.Even if we are both to agree that natural law exists, it would be impossible to say we ever had clear picture of it (by “we” I don’t mean just Catholics). As already stated, natural law has been used to forbid NFP, and allow it- and such fluidity is problematic.
“Eating up on a mountain” is a refference to idol worship. It was not ritual uncleanliness, but moral transgression of denying One God.Lol if your going to claim all of those were considered moral evils don’t forget to include eating up on a mountain
Did Holy Spirit teach sex is only for procreation? If yes, why are we teaching unity of marital act? If not, then we are not obliged to follow it.Haha that story sways no one either way. Those who are for contraception read it as fits what they want, and people against contraception read it as fits what they want. If we look at almost 2000 years of constant teaching from some of the greatest minds in Church history its clear what that story means. The Holy Spirit is pretty worthless if your really going to claim it took 2000 years before you came along to tell us all what the story really means
And if clergy says such teaching never existed, they are not promoting constant teaching.
The fact that we are created in image of God does not allow us to avoid the elemental principles of Catholic Moral Tradition and Church History as it is.
- Status