Why Do Most Catholics Ignore Humane Vitae?

[Abu]

HOLY POOH FAN #97
The Catholic Church has come a long way, more miles to go before it fully arises from sleep

You obviously know little about St Augustine either – see
churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/augustine.htm

See also Cast Connubii, Pius XI, 1930.

When you come to realise the value of Magisterial teaching through the ages you may begin to appreciate what Christ has given us in His Church that has built Western Civilization.

 

[Nate13]

@jimcintosh
So I take it you deny natural law? The errors you pointed out had to do with scientific failures not moral failures. Have you ever heard Nancy Pelosi quote Thomas Aquinas to support her pro-choice position? It’s absolutely ridiculous and really quite disturbing to hear actually. These Church Fathers did not have the scientific knowledge available to properly apply natural law. None of them ever denied the principle of natural law or its importance though. They just did the best with what they had. The principles are what’s important to take away from the Church Fathers though and apply them based on what we know today about the human body.

Man is not created in who ever you wants image. We are created in the image and likeness of God. Man has been created as male and female with a nature that has meaning.

 

[Abu]

jimcintosh #72
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.

“Educated”? Faithful Catholics don’t question the authority of Christ nor the infallibility he gave His Church to teach on faith and morals. “Formation” in truth is the purpose of Christ’s Church, and of the Catholic family, parishes and schools.

#98
One problem that the Church encounters when saying that she has to be consistent and unchanging throughout all history is that she is then unable to respond to new advances in the sciences

You obviously don’t know that the Catholic Church is the reason “why science arose in Christian Europe and nowhere else.” The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005, p 22-23.].

It took the Church, 200 years to accept a simple physical fact: that the earth is not the center of the universe.

While the Holy Office was mistaken on one aspect of the Galileo affair, Galileo picked a very inopportune time to attack the Bible after the revolt of Luther and Luther’s public rejection of some of Sacred Scripture; he was publicly disrespectful; he was wrong in his interpretation of the Bible, and he was wrong in his physics. He was not found guilty of heresy, but as suspected of heresy by the review of Cardinals. The popes promoted astronomical research, and there was no Papal or Conciliar declaration of heresy.

You obviously know nothing of the fact that the Catholic Church developed science and that the American Psychiatric Association has failed the society. Your evident confusion over the disorder of homosexuality further puts you against the Church.

In 1973 the board of trustees of the American Psychiatric Association voted to drop homosexuality as a mental disorder! They now consider it a normal variation of sexual expression! This was agreed to (6 to 4) by a referendum among the membership thus overturning a 100 year-old professional position. [Dr Jeffrey Satinover, *The Truth About Homosexuality, p 62]. But in fact only one-third of the membership did respond. (Four years later the journal “Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality” reported on a survey it conducted. The survey showed that 69 percent of psychiatrists disagreed with the vote and still considered homosexuality a disorder.) “The result was not a conclusion based upon an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times.” [Bayer, *Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: the Politics of Diagnosis].

Why do you still feel that you are a “Roman Catholic” when you have little use for the authority given by Christ?

 

[ahs]

With all due respect, but this is not what Lactanicus is claiming. He argues very strongly that there is no other purpose of generating parts apart from procreation. He simply follows Augustine in this, and would- without question- reject current teaching…

…This would be considered heretical by majority of Church Fathers, especially the likes of Lactantius. They repeated numerous times that the sole purpose of intercourse is procreation, and anything done to prevent it (no matter how natural or unnatural it seems) is morally wrong.

That’s not entirely true. The EF have to be taken into proper context. Who was their audience and what were they writing against? (Manichaeism)

Even Augustine was not of the mind that sex was SOLEY for procreation. It is only that his works were so much in defense of the procreative aspect that there was little (if any) need to explain the unitive.

Augustine: “For of these certain [goods] are necessary for the sake of wisdom, as learning: certain for the sake of health, as meat and drink and sleep: certain for the sake of friendship, as marriage or sexual intercourse: for hence subsists the propagation of the human kind, wherein friendly fellowship is a great good.” (Of the Good of Marriage, Section 9).

Gregory I as well saw a unitive aspect, or at the very least, recognized that incontinent intercourse was not sinful: “…when the married have intercourse with each other even incontinently, they still avoid lapse into sin, and are still saved through mercy. For they find as it were a little city, wherein to be protected from the fire; since this married life is not indeed marvellous for virtue, but yet is secure from punishment…But the married, in this course of conduct, then preserve their lives as it were in a small city, when they intercede for each other by continual supplications. Whence it is also rightly said by the Angel to the same Lot, See I have accepted your prayers concerning this thing also, that I will not overthrow the city for the which you have spoken Genesis 19:21. For in truth, when supplication is poured out to God, such married life is by no means condemned. Concerning which supplication Paul also admonishes, saying, Defraud not one the other except it be with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer 1 Corinthians 7:5.” (Regula Pastoralis, Part III, Caput xxvii)

Thomas Aquinas: “There are some who say that intercourse between married persons is not devoid of sin. But this is heretical, for the Apostle says: “Let marriage be honorable in all and the bed undefiled.”[15] Not only is it devoid of sin, but for those in the state of grace it is meritorious for eternal life. Sometimes, however, it may be a venial sin, sometimes a mortal sin. When it is had with the intention of bringing forth offspring, it is an act of virtue. When it is had with the intent of rendering mutual comfort, it is an act of justice. When it is a cause of exciting lust, although within the limits of marriage, it is a venial sin; and when it goes beyond these limits, so as to intend intercourse with another if possible, it would be a mortal sin.” (Catechism of St. Thomas Aquinas, pg. 80)

“I answer that, Since no act proceeding from a deliberate will is indifferent, as stated in the Second Book (Sent. ii, D, 40, 1, 3; I-II, 18, 9), the marriage act is always either sinful or meritorious in one who is in a state of grace. For if the motive for the marriage act be a virtue, whether of justice that they may render the debt, or of religion, that they may beget children for the worship of God, it is meritorious…” (Summa Theologica Supplement Question 41)

 

[Chrono13]

Pure supposition as usual, and irrelevant – God killed Onan for his contraceptive action. Your fantasies are all irrelevant.

How can such honest and argumented question be supposition? If the task of evangleism is to promote answers, I have right on them, as every Catholic.

As God has given us the natural moral law, and His Catholic Church with His Supreme Vicars endowed with infallibility in doctrine against contraception, such dissent has no sway with the faithful.

However, vicars have no authority in changing or avoiding the reality of previous teachings. You simply can’t say that Catholic Church did not have knowledge of woman’s fertility circle, or allowed it’s nature to regulate birth.

On St Augustine – “the Manicheism of his early days remained for him a darkness from which he had emerged, and not a source of recurrent pessimism. [2] Once he began to walk in the light of the faith, his vision of sexuality and marriage became more and more sharpened and refined by his efforts, in controversy, to keep a Catholic balance between the extremes of Manicheism, on the one hand, and Pelagianism, on the other
.

Augustine’s writings on sex and marriage aimed to combat not only the negative views of the Manicheans, but also the over-optimistic views of the Pelagians.

Agreed. His claim that tracking woman’s fertiltiy circle is sign of Manicheism, however, makes things difficult.

 

[Chrono13]

“Educated”? Faithful Catholics don’t question the authority of Christ nor the infallibility he gave His Church to teach on faith and morals.

However, they have full right to ask questions regarding the teaching, especially it’s historical background. And if somebody avoids or lowers the integrity of previous position, it will surely create puzzlement in the Church.

While the Holy Office was mistaken on one aspect of the Galileo affair, Galileo picked a very inopportune time to attack the Bible after the revolt of Luther and Luther’s public rejection of some of Sacred Scripture; he was publicly disrespectful; he was wrong in his interpretation of the Bible, and he was wrong in his physics.

Galileo “attacked the Bible” but “was not found of heresy”?

Galileo was “wrong in his interpretation of Bible?” How can this be? He said that Earth goes around the sun, and that Bible can’t teach otherwise, since Bible is true. This goes for “Galileo was wrong in physics as well”.

He was not found guilty of heresy, but as suspected of heresy by the review of Cardinals. The popes promoted astronomical research, and there was no Papal or Conciliar declaration of heresy.

Negative. Galileo’s publications were added to Index of forbidden books. Pope Alexander claimed “We, having taken the advice of our Cardinals, confirm and approve with Apostolic authority by the tenor of these presents, and command and enjoin all persons everywhere to yield to this Index a constant and complete obedience.”

The Pope spoke in Apostolic authority, and together with body of Cardinals. This does not mean he was infallible, but still, what counts greatly: Catholics not respecting this order were denied to sacraments. And this lasted up to 1750s. No Catholic of that time could participate in serious astronomical research without putting his eternal soul in danger.

Catholic Church never issued the statement that geocentrism is false, either. It seems they just left the situation as it is. This is why certain Catholic apologets, like Salza and Sungenis, claim geocentrism is infallible doctrine, and still hold belief that Earth is center of universe.

 

[Chrono13]

That’s not entirely true. The EF have to be taken into proper context. Who was their audience and what were they writing against? (Manichaeism)

To who they talked to is important, but how they defend their position is of value as well.

Augustine: "For of these certain [goods] are necessary for the sake of wisdom, as learning…

However, few lines after, the great saint will claim…

"11. And yet not to these themselves is marriage a sin; which, if it were chosen in comparison of fornication, would be a less sin than fornication, and yet would be a sin. But now what shall we say against the most plain speech of the Apostle, saying, “Let her do what she will; she sins not, if she be married;” and, “If you shall have taken a wife, you have not sinned: and, if a virgin shall have been married, she sins not.” Hence surely it is not lawful now to doubt that marriage is no sin. Therefore the Apostle allows not marriage as matter “of pardon:” for who can doubt that it is extremely absurd to say, that they have not sinned, unto whom “pardon” is granted. But he allows, as matter of “pardon,” that sexual intercourse, which takes place through incontinence, not alone for the begetting of children, and, at times, not at all for the begetting of children; and it is not that marriage forces this to take place, but that it procures pardon for it… For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting is free from blame, and itself is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity, no longer follows reason, but lust. And yet it pertains to the character of marriage, not to exact this, but to yield it to the partner, lest by fornication the other sin damnably. But, if both are set under such lust, they do what is plainly not matter of marriage. However, if in their intercourse they love what is honest more than what is dishonest, that is, what is matter of marriage more than what is not matter of marriage, this is allowed to them on the authority of the Apostle as matter of pardon: and for this fault, they have in their marriage, not what sets them on to commit it, but what entreats pardon for it, if they turn not away from them the mercy of God, either by not abstaining on certain days, that they may be free to pray, and through this abstinence, as through fasting, may commend their prayers; or by changing the natural use into that which is against nature, which is more damnable when it is done in the case of husband or wife.

Gregory I as well saw a unitive aspect, or at the very least, recognized that incontinent intercourse was not sinful: "…when the married have intercourse with each other even incontinently, they still avoid lapse into sin, and are still saved through mercy. (Regula Pastoralis, Part III, Caput xxvii)

What is “incontinent intercourse” for Gregory?

Husbands and wives are to be admonished to remember that they are joined together for the sake of producing offspring; and, when, giving themselves to immoderate intercourse, they transfer the occasion of procreation to the service of pleasure, to consider that, though they go not outside wedlock yet in wedlock itself they exceed the just dues of wedlock.

And then…

Or, at any rate, they are as it were upon the mountain, who, though cleaving to carnal intercourse, still, beyond the due association for the production of offspring, are not loosely lost in pleasure of the flesh. For to stand on the mountain is to seek nothing in the flesh except the fruit of procreation. To stand on the mountain is not to cleave to the flesh in a fleshly way. But, since there are many who relinquish indeed the sins of the flesh, and yet, when placed in the state of wedlock, do not observe solely the claims of due intercourse, Lot went indeed out of Sodom, but yet did not at once reach the mountain heights; because a damnable life is already relinquished, but still the loftiness of conjugal continence is not thoroughly attained.

The ideal is still sex purely for procreation, or in Pope’s words “mountain heights”.The idea that sexual pleasure is unitive is still far away.

Also, one must ask, would this logic allow NFP in practice? Seems not, as every act to prevent or lower the possibility of conception would be something more then “incontinence”?

Thomas Aquinas: "There are some who say that intercourse between married persons is not devoid of sin. But this is heretical, for the Apostle says: “Let marriage be honorable in all and the bed undefiled.”[15] …

" (Catechism of St. Thomas Aquinas, pg. 80)

You can read this passage in Augustinian way- when done for begetting, act is virtue. When of providing marital debt, justice. When of lust, venial sin, and when done with sin in mind- mortal error.

"I answer that, Since no act proceeding from a deliberate will is indifferent, as stated in the Second Book (Sent. ii, D, 40, 1, 3; I-II, 18, 9), the marriage act is always either sinful or meritorious in one who is in a state of grace. (Summa Theologica Supplement Question 41) .

Thomas is very strange sometimes. In article before, he proclaimed that apostle forbid pleasure in sex. In this same article, he asked himself how can sex be of merit when by default it is venial sin (Augustine). His answer is puzzling, but it might help you .

 

[Abu]

Chrono13 still wallows in error – an example of never learning.

First: Galileo picked a very inopportune time to attack the Bible.
Second, he was publicly disrespectful and disobedient.
Third, he was wrong in his interpretation of the Bible.
Fourth, he was wrong in his Physics.

1. The inopportune time. While not condoning in any way the action of some of the Cardinals at this time, one can hardly blame the Church authorities for taking a dim view of an attack on the veracity of the Bible, at a time when the Church was being rent by major heresies as in England, Germany and Switzerland.
2. His public disobedience. Just as today scientific contributions to reputable journals are passed to a panel of referees for censoring before being published, and just as any book on religious matters published these days by a Catholic author is submitted to his Bishop for an Imprimatur, so did Galileo obtain permission to publish his works, as can be seen on the frontispiece of most of his books. For his “Dialogue on Two World Systems”, published in 1632, after the first clash in 1616, Galileo had permission to publish on two conditions: (a) that the Copernican theory be presented as theory and not as fact; and (b) that the papal arguments be included in the book. He failed to comply with the first condition, and offended the authorities by placing the papal arguments in the mouth of Simplicio, the rather slow-witted member of the three characters in the book. It was for these reasons that he was asked to appear before the Inquisition and made to recant his statement that the sun was known to be stationary, and made to do penance for his rudeness, both of which he carried out. His so-called imprisonment was merely a curtailment of his movements about Italy. He was in receipt of a papal pension from this time, he carried out experimental work at his residence - discovering the small oscillations in the moon’s movements - and drew up a navigation system based upon the satellites of Jupiter. On his deathbed he was sent a papal blessing, a rather rare and highly prized privilege for any Catholic.
3. His wrong interpretation of the Bible. In the fourth century, St. Augustine had counselled his fellow Christians to read the scriptures to find spiritual truths - not matters of natural science. Galileo should have heeded this advice of thirteen centuries before, instead of asserting that the Bible was in error - in particular Joshua 10.13 “Sun and Moon stood still”. We will agree with Galileo’s own statement, “Holy writ is intended to teach men how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go” just as we would agree also with Cardinal Bellarmine’s reply, “If there is contradiction between the Bible and observed facts, let us say we have misunderstood the Bible rather than pronounce false what is demonstrated”. It was this over-literal interpretation of the language of the Bible that caused Galileo’s trouble.
4. He was wrong in his Physics. The Copernican theory needed the velocity of light, first measured in 1675, and Newton’s Law of Gravitation, formulated in 1700, for its proof, and obviously these were not available to Galileo in 1616. His proof from the tides was completely wrong. Most scientists of his day disagreed with his theory - two famous cases being Tycho Brahe and Francis Bacon. This alone would vindicate the action of the Cardinals who also condemned it; - (and, if it may help the present Ecumenical movement, let it be noted that Calvin and Luther both condemned it violently). As Huxley pointed out, “the Pope and the Cardinals had the better of it.” In America both Yale and Harvard taught the Geocentric theory plus the Heliocentric theory until the eighteenth century. According to Professor Bok, the first real proof of the Copernican theory came with the discovery of the aberration of starlight in 1725, a century after Galileo’s time.

BTW, the Rationalist Society in England assigned one of its anti-Catholic journalist members, Sherwood Taylor, to write a book attacking the Church over Galileo. “After studying the case, Taylor was converted and received into the Catholic Church – grace sometimes works in strange ways!” The Six Days of Creation, Br Thomas Mary Sennott, Ravengate 1984, p 186].

 

[Chrono13]

1. The inopportune time. While not condoning in any way the action of some of the Cardinals at this time, one can hardly blame the Church authorities for taking a dim view of an attack on the veracity of the Bible, at a time when the Church was being rent by major heresies as in England, Germany and Switzerland.

1.Galileo did not attack the Bible.
2. The situation in Europe could not have puzzled theological mind, since it proclaimed Protestantism as false with ease.

1. His public disobedience. Just as today scientific contributions to reputable journals are passed to a panel of referees for censoring before being published, and just as any book on religious matters published these days by a Catholic author is submitted to his Bishop for an Imprimatur, so did Galileo obtain permission to publish his works, as can be seen on the frontispiece of most of his books…

So, he is a sinner who was right on subject.

1. His wrong interpretation of the Bible. In the fourth century, St. Augustine had counselled his fellow Christians to read the scriptures to find spiritual truths - not matters of natural science. Galileo should have heeded this advice of thirteen centuries before, instead of asserting that the Bible was in error - in particular Joshua 10.13 “Sun and Moon stood still”. We will agree with Galileo’s own statement, “Holy writ is intended to teach men how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go” just as we would agree also with Cardinal Bellarmine’s reply, “If there is contradiction between the Bible and observed facts, let us say we have misunderstood the Bible rather than pronounce false what is demonstrated”. It was this over-literal interpretation of the language of the Bible that caused Galileo’s trouble.

And guess what? Church rejected Bellarmine’s claim. They claimed they have understood the Bible, and nobody else has.

I can’t defend every Galileo’s thought, but if he came with idea “I proved that Bible is false”, his fate would be much worse then Pope’s blessing on the deathbed.

1. He was wrong in his Physics. The Copernican theory needed the velocity of light, first measured in 1675, and Newton’s Law of Gravitation, formulated in 1700, for its proof, and obviously these were not available to Galileo in 1616. His proof from the tides was completely wrong. Most scientists of his day disagreed with his theory - two famous cases being Tycho Brahe and Francis Bacon. This alone would vindicate the action of the Cardinals who also condemned it; - (and, if it may help the present Ecumenical movement, let it be noted that Calvin and Luther both condemned it violently). As Huxley pointed out, “the Pope and the Cardinals had the better of it.” In America both Yale and Harvard taught the Geocentric theory plus the Heliocentric theory until the eighteenth century. According to Professor Bok, the first real proof of the Copernican theory came with the discovery of the aberration of starlight in 1725, a century after Galileo’s time.

The point is that what he got right led him to right conclusions regarding Earth’s position in universe.

Aberration of starlight only comfirmed that his points were indeed true.

BTW, the Rationalist Society in England assigned one of its anti-Catholic journalist members, Sherwood Taylor, to write a book attacking the Church over Galileo. “After studying the case, Taylor was converted and received into the Catholic Church – grace sometimes works in strange ways!” The Six Days of Creation, Br Thomas Mary Sennott, Ravengate 1984, p 186].

Yes, thank God for that.

Now, back to the point- did Church forbid sacraments to those who supported Galileo’s beliefs? I wish with this question to return to original topic, as respected moderators might close this topic if we go too far.

If the answer is yes, this opens new questions regarding the position of layman in Church system.

 

[edwest2]

Let’s be fair. For all of human history, up until the 1960s, sexual intimacy was directly linked to procreation.

One problem that the Church encounters when saying that she has to be consistent and unchanging throughout all history is that she is then unable to respond to new advances in the sciences.

Remember, the Inquisition condemned Galileo in the 1633 for saying that the earth was not the center of the universe (heliocentrism). In 1758, the Church dropped the general prohibition of books advocating heliocentrism from the Index of Forbidden Books but continued to prohibit Copernicus’s and Galileo’s books. In 1835, she dropped Copernicus’s De Revolutionibus and Galileo’s Dialogue from the Index and indicated that heliocentrism could be taught as a fact – although she refused even then to admit that Galileo’s condemnation by the Inquisition court was an error. (It wasn’t until 2000 that Pope John Paul II issued a formal apology for all the mistakes committed by some Catholics in the last 2,000 years of the Catholic Church’s history, including the trial of Galileo among others.)

It took the Church, 200 years to accept a simple physical fact: that the earth is not the center of the universe.

Now, we are just 50 years since the discovery of medicine and plastics which allow for the physical separation of sexual intimacy from procreation. We are just 150 years from the first appearance of the word homosexual in print and only 40 years from the time that the American Psychiatric Association removed its classification as a disorder. (There are other challenging scientific inventions such as human cloning and even the creation of new life in the laboratory which are sure to also challenge the Church in the near future.)

So, I think it is unfair to ask that the Church change quickly. She is simply incapable of doing so.

But, individual Catholics can and do respond to change quicker. Faced with the reality that sexual intimacy can be separated from procreation, they have chosen to make use of the news things made available by science to do so. Faced with a new understanding of the homosexual person and of homosexual affection, a majority of Catholics in the U.S. now approve of marriage equality.

Is this a matter of incomplete catechesis? I don’t think so. As I wrote in my previous post, I think that it is not a matter of ignorance, but rather that most Catholics know what the pope wrote in his encyclical and have prayerfully considered it and rejected it as not consistent with their lived experience.

So, where does that leave us? I cannot predict the future. Will some future pope acknowledge that sex in a loving relationship can be separated from being a purely procreative act and therefore act in all of its beauty to strengthen the love between the couple? Will some future pope bow to the understanding that love between persons of the same gender is no different than love within a sterile or elderly couple where procreation is impossible? Some here will say no; some will say, “God, I hope so.” None of us knows, and I predict that none of us will live long enough to find out.

You are mixing in topics that have nothing to do with the question. I was born in the mid 1950s. The average number of kids in my neighborhood was two. There was no birth control pill, IUD, spermicidal foams and other devices to prevent conception.

We still had sin, of course, but today is generally not better regarding the proper understanding of sex within marriage. The Church has stood firm while others sought to make public what was meant to be private.

Truth is truth. Opinion does not matter.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Abu]

As ahs and Abu have shown St Thomas Aquinas and St Augustine both indisputably give testimony to the Church’s constant and unchanging teaching against contraception, and in the high esteem of sacramental marriage.

All attempts to ridicule the constant tradition and teaching of Christ’s Church are habitually prejudiced, and have failed miserably.

The Natural Law is “a law that is in principle accessible to human reason and not dependent on (though entirely compatible with and, indeed, illumined by) divine revelation.” (The Clash of Orthodoxies, Professor Robert P George (Princeton),2001, p 169). So that’s where you have to start – with reason, and the effects of acting against reason and the natural moral law.

The misuse of NBR may be compared to the misuse of alcohol – St Paul advises to “take a little wine for thy stomach’s sake” (1Tim 5:23) a good action, he does not condone becoming drunk on wine – clearly a misuse which he condemns as a bad action in Gal 5:21. Denying procreation by NBR without serious reasons is unworthy.

Further, Blessed John Paul II affirms St Augustine’s teaching in Love And Responsibility, Collins 1981, p 44:
The NT commandment demands love for others, for persons, as Blessed John Paul II reminds us, and he affirms that St Augustine differentiates between “pleasure for its own sake, with no concern for the object of pleasure, and this is what he calls uti.” The other attitude “finds joy in a totally committed relationship with the object precisely because this is what the nature of the object demands, and this he calls frui. The commandment to love shows the way to enjoyment in this sense – frui in the association of persons of different sex within and outside marriage.”

“While the teaching [against contraception] was always there…the Magisterium expressed itself with vigor whenever the need arose…the list of such declarations would be interminable. In country after country and in every country, bishops and councils forbid ‘contraceptive portions,’ ‘herbs or other agents so you will not have children,’ ‘spilling the seed in coitus,’ ‘coitus interruptus,’ ‘poisons of sterility,’ ‘avoiding children by evil acts,’ ‘putting material things in the vagina,’ and ‘causing temporary or permanent sterility.’ These and similar statements occur in ecclesiastical documents before the end of the thirteenth century.” (The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 370).

We’ve seen in post #90 that the DIDACHE, one of the earliest written disciplinary documents from the infant Church (100-150 A.D.) condemned both abortion and contraception, as well as the Fathers of the Church, the Decretals of Pope Gregory IX (1148-1241) the Council of Trent and the infallible doctrine in *Casti Connubii *of Pius XI and in Humanae Vitae of Paul VI – consistent and from the earliest times.

 

[ahs]

To who they talked to is important, but how they defend their position is of value as well.

I agree here. But I still fail to see any contradiction between the EF’s and what is currently written in the Catechism, especially in Humanae Vitae. I see a singualr voice in unison…the voice of the Church. Sure, there a great deal of the topic being clarified and honed, but no contradiction and no change, per se. That’s why I find it hard to imiagine someone ignoring HV based on some contradiction they may perceive in the Church. Things must be taken in their proper context.

Thomas Aquinas I don’t think is strange at all. He only appears to contradict himself on the surface. Again, taken in proper context and putting oneself in the the frame of his time and his audience, it all fits together perfectly with what the Church has always taught and continues to teach to this day.

 

[Chrono13]

As ahs and Abu have shown St Thomas Aquinas and St Augustine both indisputably give testimony to the Church’s constant and unchanging teaching against contraception, and in the high esteem of sacramental marriage.

All attempts to ridicule the constant tradition and teaching of Christ’s Church are habitually prejudiced, and have failed miserably.

Around 300 people read this topic on daily basis, do you honestly believe they have no God-given mind? They have read what saints of the Church claimed regarding contraception, and that is everything but “habitual prejudice”. It is clear that they knew about NFP, and forbid it on account that sexuality is only for procreation (and lustful if not done for that purpose in exclusive way ).

Saying otherwise is ridicule of Catholic History, and denying Church authority.

The Natural Law is “a law that is in principle accessible to human reason and not dependent on (though entirely compatible with and, indeed, illumined by) divine revelation.” (The Clash of Orthodoxies, Professor Robert P George (Princeton),2001, p 169). So that’s where you have to start – with reason, and the effects of acting against reason and the natural moral law.

It is sufficient to read Chruch Fathers and realise they claimed *only *natural use of sexuality is procreation and- as St. Augustine of Hippo clearly stated- “everything that goes beyond that neccessity is lust”. And since lust is not natural, everything beyond intent of procreation (for example, expression of love) is against natural law.

The misuse of NBR may be compared to the misuse of alcohol – St Paul advises to “take a little wine for thy stomach’s sake” (1Tim 5:23) a good action, he does not condone becoming drunk on wine – clearly a misuse which he condemns as a bad action in Gal 5:21. Denying procreation by NBR without serious reasons is unworthy.

Negative. At least not by statements of Church Fathers.

St. Augustine said that “tracking woman’s /menstrual/ cleaning in order to control births deny marriage and turns the pair into harlots”.

Further, Blessed John Paul II affirms St Augustine’s teaching in Love And Responsibility, Collins 1981, p 44:
The NT commandment demands love for others, for persons, as Blessed John Paul II reminds us, and he affirms that St Augustine differentiates between “pleasure for its own sake, with no concern for the object of pleasure, and this is what he calls uti.” The other attitude “finds joy in a totally committed relationship with the object precisely because this is what the nature of the object demands, and this he calls frui. The commandment to love shows the way to enjoyment in this sense – frui in the association of persons of different sex within and outside marriage.”

Yes, that is a problem, once we know what Augustine *really *meant.

“While the teaching [against contraception] was always there…the Magisterium expressed itself with vigor whenever the need arose…the list of such declarations would be interminable. In country after country and in every country, bishops and councils forbid ‘contraceptive portions,’ ‘herbs or other agents so you will not have children,’ ‘spilling the seed in coitus,’ ‘coitus interruptus,’ ‘poisons of sterility,’ ‘avoiding children by evil acts,’ ‘putting material things in the vagina,’ and ‘causing temporary or permanent sterility.’ These and similar statements occur in ecclesiastical documents before the end of the thirteenth century.” (The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 370).

You forgot to mention “tracking woman’s fertility circle”.

Sorry, there is no denial of that.

We’ve seen in post #90 that the DIDACHE, one of the earliest written disciplinary documents from the infant Church (100-150 A.D.) condemned both abortion and contraception,

No, we have not. Didache denies use of magical potions, and they were not used only for contraception. To use potion in order to concieve a child was sin of pharmakeia as well.

 

[Chrono13]

I agree here. But I still fail to see any contradiction between the EF’s and what is currently written in the Catechism, especially in Humanae Vitae. I see a singualr voice in unison…the voice of the Church. Sure, there a great deal of the topic being clarified and honed, but no contradiction and no change, per se. That’s why I find it hard to imiagine someone ignoring HV based on some contradiction they may perceive in the Church. Things must be taken in their proper context.

Come on. You know what I mean.

Early Church Fathers constantly claimed that, again quoting St. Augustine, “For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting is free from blame, and itself is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity, no longer follows reason, but lust.”

It is a different system of ethics and values then one given by Humanae Vitae. For Fathers, even lack of desire to concept a child makes the intercourse sinful and unnatural. This is why they forbid use of NFP.

Thomas Aquinas I don’t think is strange at all. He only appears to contradict himself on the surface. Again, taken in proper context and putting oneself in the the frame of his time and his audience, it all fits together perfectly with what the Church has always taught and continues to teach to this day.

No context or frame will suit his thoughts to the shape you would like.

 

[ahs]

Come on. You know what I mean.

Early Church Fathers constantly claimed that, again quoting St. Augustine, “For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting is free from blame, and itself is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity, no longer follows reason, but lust.”

It is a different system of ethics and values then one given by Humanae Vitae. For Fathers, even lack of desire to concept a child makes the intercourse sinful and unnatural. This is why they forbid use of NFP.

Yes, I understand what you are saying. Put into proper context, Augustine is telling the Manichaeaists (spelling?) that intercourse that is had with the purposeful removal of the procreative nature is “lust”. He was writing to a people who believed sex with same-sex-persons and animals was no different than sex with a spouse. They believed sex should be had solely for pleasure. They did not believe the procreative nature was necessary…in fact, they saw it as something negative. Augustine does not diminish a unitive aspect here, he emphasizes the procreative, because it was the procreative that was called into question.

No context or frame will suit his thoughts to the shape you would like.

His thoughts don’t need to fit any shape I would like. In fact, it would be a dis-service to myself to try to fit his thoughts into the way I wish to percieve them. I try, instead, to form my own thoughts based on the Church and the EF’s, so that I can be certain that I am united to the Church that Christ established. But it is a matter of fact that his thoughts fit perfectly with the Church, when taken in proper context.

 

[Abu]

Why do most Catholics ignore Humanae Vitae? Here’s your answer – a forthright clarification by none other than the great Timothy Cardinal Dolan of New York.

tinyurl.com/7elkvdw
New York Cardinal Dolan says Church failed to teach against contraception
by Patrick B. Craine
Mon Apr 02, 2012
Extracts:
NEW YORK, April 2, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - As the Catholic Church in America fights Obama’s contraceptive mandate—perhaps its most vigorous defense of Catholic sexual teaching in decades—the Cardinal Archbishop of New York has admitted that the Church has failed to teach the faithful Catholic teaching on contraception, and so “forfeited the chance to be a coherent moral voice when it comes to one of the more burning issues of the day.”

In a frank interview with the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, who heads the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and is increasingly being billed as America’s leading Catholic cleric, says the Church has failed to communicate its moral teachings in the area of sexuality. He says further that the fault lies with Church leaders.

In his interview with Taranto, Cardinal Dolan insisted again that the bishops’ main concern is religious freedom rather than contraception.

“We find it completely unswallowable, both as Catholics and mostly as Americans, that a bureau of the American government would take it upon itself to define ‘ministry,’” he said. “We would find that to be—we’ve used the words ‘radical,’ ‘unprecedented’ and ‘dramatically intrusive.’”

This infallible doctrine in Casti Connubii, 1930, and Humanae Vitae, 1968, reaffirms the unchanging teaching of Christ’s Church from the beginning.

Now we have a clarion call to renew that teaching and the commitment to truth and fidelity to truth which Christ demands.

 

[choose_to_love]

Well, I’m a couple of pages behind now. Still, I have not seen any evidence that any other church father besides Augustine addressed fertility awareness at all, and he only in a quite different context. Chrono, I also do not think you have addressed Msgr. Burke’s points about Augustine seeing pleasure as OK. I do think it is possible to read all the sources posted as standing for the propostition that immoderate intercourse - - not sought out for mutual self-giving, only (exclusively) to satisfy lust - - is what is bad, and that there is a continuum from pure self-giving to purely lustful relations.

Now, if, for the sake of argument, church fathers were aware of fertility awareness to avoid pregnancy, would it not follow that they would encourage such awareness and promote relations only when conception was likely, even as a “gold standard” if not the norm? That never occurred, as far as I know.

ETA: Chrono, do you intend it as condescending when you preface your remarks with a “sorry”? That is how it is coming across to me, but I assume that is not how you mean it.

 

[Boulder257]

I haven’t read the entire thread so I apologize if this point was already made, but in answering the question posed in the title I think one of the answers could be, “because they want to.” They believe that if they do not “know” the truth or can justify some rendition of the truth than they can live the way they choose without the consequence.

To put it simply, Some people are confused because they want to be confused.

 

[BrJuniper]

Most catholics ignore most of HV because it is upsetting. The abortion and contraception issues are easy, the dignity of every person is difficult. Thus, Most Catholics ignore most encyclicals because we prefer to be non participatory in God’s work.

 

[Chrono13]

Yes, I understand what you are saying. Put into proper context, Augustine is telling the Manichaeaists (spelling?) that intercourse that is had with the purposeful removal of the procreative nature is “lust”.

You are not getting me right, then Augustine claimed that intercourse without desire to beget a child is “lust”. Even desire to have sex without begetting, for him, is sinful.

Couple who is open to life is still sinning, if they do not desire to concieve a child.

He was writing to a people who believed sex with same-sex-persons and animals was no different than sex with a spouse. They believed sex should be had solely for pleasure.

Gnostics believed body is trapping soul, thus begetting a child was a sin in their religion. Their religious leaders were celibate, and they did not teach sex can be practiced solely for pleasure.

They did not believe the procreative nature was necessary…in fact, they saw it as something negative. Augustine does not diminish a unitive aspect here, he emphasizes the procreative, because it was the procreative that was called into question.

But, as we can see, Augustine firmly believes that NFP is nullifying procreative aspect of sexuality.