Why Do Most Catholics Ignore Humane Vitae?

[Chrono13]

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.

He is not wrong. But Church yet has to reply to challenges which were given- both theological and practical.

 

[Chrono13]

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.

What can I say? I respect your opinion, but Augustine was quite clear when he said that everything that goes beyond due necessity of procreation is lust, and lack of self-giving.

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.

For Church Fathers, intent of couple was all that mattered. Time of intercourse (or menstrual circle) was not important, as desire made act moral or not.

In case of infertile couple, they were preforming “marital debt”, intercourse with intent of relieving sexual tension to spouse. However, this was still considered venial sin.

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.

I use it to stress certain point or fact, usually when it is obvious to everyone.

 

[ahs]

You are not getting me right, then .

My fault for not clarifying. What I should have said is…I understand what you are saying, however, you are mis-interpreting him or taking his words out of context. The truth is that, 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.

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.

My previous quotes from Augustine and Gregory I and Aquinas contradict this conclusion.

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

I don’t recall Augustine ever mentioning NFP, NBR, or suggestiong that such would nullify the procreative aspect. That is simply your personal interpretation of his actual words that state nothing of the sort.

 

[Chrono13]

My fault for not clarifying. What I should have said is…I understand what you are saying, however, you are mis-interpreting him or taking his words out of context. The truth is that, 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.

And again, I repeat- Augustine said (and meant) that sex is only for procreation and everything done to remove or lower it (such as NFP/NBR) is act of sin.

Manicheists, from what I know, did not believe sex is only for pleasure, but that conception is sinful. This is why their clergy was celibate, but layman were permitted to marry.

My previous quotes from Augustine and Gregory I and Aquinas contradict this conclusion.

I have replied on them, didn’t I?

I don’t recall Augustine ever mentioning NFP, NBR, or suggestiong that such would nullify the procreative aspect. That is simply your personal interpretation of his actual words that state nothing of the sort.

NFP or NBR are birth control techniques based on tracking woman’s fertility circle. Because the basic use of it is attempt to preform a sexual act without conception, it was attacked by St. Augustine.

Each and every Church Father sharing Augustine’s view (and we mentioned Lactancius as example) follows by default his stance.

I am welcome to other opinions. However, I think objective analysis will not evade the reality.

 

[LucyLight]

I would like to broach this simple question. Is the problem with Catholics who ignore the teachings of the church on contraception, or with the teachings of the church?

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

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

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

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

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

I think some of the reasons the former pope gives in Theology of the Body as to why artificial contraception is wrong are a real stretch of the imagination and probably not true for a lot of couples. For example a husband using a condom is not giving all of himself or is using his spouse for self gratification.. I’m assuming these reasons are pretty unconvincing for most people as they have been for myself. The bottom line is that the Pope’s arguments or reasons for infalliable teaching are not infalliable but the teaching is.

I practice NFP but not for reasons like “because I want to give my spouse all of myself” because that’s not the issue. I practice NFP because the church says that it is licit to do so.

 

[LucyLight]

Oh…and I’d like to add that abstaining from sex during your fertile time while having sex during your infertile time is not natural. Everything in the woman’s body is geared toward’s having sex during the fertile time and not so much during the infertile time. So that’s another language problem that I think we have in explaining NFP vs artificial conception. My Catholic OBGYN who also teaches NFP says that it is definitely not natural to chart and avoid intercourse during the fertile time. He says it should be called sacrificial family planning. We shouldn’t sugar coat it and use overly poetic language it only confuses the issue.

 

[jimcintosh]

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

It is hard to tell from your post what the cardinal said and what words you are putting in his mouth. I would be surprised, no astonished, if he, in fact, said the words which you appear to quote from him about Humane Vitae being infallible. I just can’t believe that man as careful as a cardinal must be would say something as reckless as that about such an important church doctrine.

But, maybe he did. I just can’t tell from your post and the way you weave the text.

 

[ahs]

My Catholic OBGYN who also teaches NFP says that it is definitely not natural to chart and avoid intercourse during the fertile time. He says it should be called sacrificial family planning. We shouldn’t sugar coat it and use overly poetic language it only confuses the issue.

I agree. It is sacrificial and should not be sugar-coated. This would help more people to better understand how different NFP is from contraception. NFP utilizes self-sacrifice…giving up one’s desires during the most natural period of that desiring…while contraception gives in to self-gratification by allowing one to indulge while simultaneously rejecting the natural end of the act.

It is hard to tell from your post what the cardinal said and what words you are putting in his mouth. I would be surprised, no astonished, if he, in fact, said the words which you appear to quote from him about Humane Vitae being infallible. I just can’t believe that man as careful as a cardinal must be would say something as reckless as that about such an important church doctrine.

But, maybe he did. I just can’t tell from your post and the way you weave the text.

I thought Abu was pretty clear on what the Bishop did and did not say. The words from the Bishop were placed in “quotation marks”. If you are uncertain/unclear what the Bishop really did or did not say, Abu also placed a link to the actual article so you can read it for yourself.

 

[kama3]

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.

Nice try, but you have conveniently overlooked three things:

1. Galileo’s observation of phases of Venus cannot be explained under the Ptolemaic system. Claiming that Galileo had no proof of heliocentrism is only partially true – he had evidence which falsified the Ptolemaic system.
2. After his discovery, the Jesuit astronomers switched to the Tychoic system. The Tychoic system is mathematically equvalent to a Copernican system after a coordinate transform (due to relativity of motion); however, the resulting equations are nightmarish. A simple application of Occam’s razor shows that the Copernican system is preferred.
3. Galileo’s contemporary, Kepler, formulated his laws of planetary motion in the Copernican system.

So like it or not, that matter was already settled by 1630 or so. However, the Catholic Church instead clang to Roma locuta, causa finita mentality and so persisted in obstinate denial of reality for 200 years.

It’s all over the same again, except this time we have some developments in biological sciences which have falsified some long-standing dogma. And again, the response is denial.

The real rationale for the upholding of contraception ban was this: What then with the millions we have sent to hell, if these norms were not valid?

 

[Abu]

jimcintosh #127
I just can’t believe that man as careful as a cardinal must be would say something as reckless as that about such an important church doctrine.

Hardly “important” if it can be brushed aside at selfist choice. Popes don’t define doctrine to mislead, but to strengthen morality and fidelity – take note. The intensity of the admission of fault clearly expresses the gravity of the sin of contraception. For anyone else as malformed:
**From EWTN Q&A: Answer to me by David Gregson on Nov-22-2002: **
“You are correct in stating that the Pope exercises his charism of infallibility not only in dogmatic definitions issued, ex cathedra, as divinely revealed (of which there have been only two), but also in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra, which would include canonizations (that they are in fact Saints, enjoying the Beatific Vision in heaven), moral teachings (such as contained in Humanae vitae), and other doctrines he has taught as necessarily connected with truths divinely revealed, such as that priestly ordination is reserved to men.”

The three levels of teaching are:
**1) Dogma – infallible **(Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
**2) Doctrine – infallible **(Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
**3) Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) **and require intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium *25), not an assent of faith. [See the Explanatory Note on Ad Tuendam Fidem by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith]
[ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM]](http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM])

Pope Pius XI’s *Casti Connubii *destroyed the concoctions of the Anglican capitulation to contraception in 1930 – the first sect to break away from the total Protestant condemnation:
“any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.” Casti Connubii, 56, 1930].

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].

 

[kalbertone]

I mean, you can’t call them astray, and then conclude their proclamations are part of constant teaching. If they are wrong, their teaching is not valid and can not be used to proclaim consistance of the age.

T

I’m skeptical you can provide that in satisfactionary manner. At least if we are talking to older documents.

Even Pius XII denied that unitive purpose of marriage is equall to procreational.

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.

Nope. Sorry, their writings are pretty clear on the subject.

They claimed Paul meant something completely different on the subject when he charished marriage. The idea was that marriage is great despite sex in it.

Church Fathers had their thoughts, and we should not judge them, but accept them as such. Whether idea that sex is only for generation is wrong, stupid, correct or heretical is not as important as the fact that certain people try hard to deny those ideas even existed in Church.

 

[kalbertone]

Most catholics reject humanae vitae because it goes against reason & peoples experiences.
Some people here mention the early church fathers.They followed the pagan greeks that hailed sex in marriage as a necessary evil tainted with sin.This is far from the gospel as east is to west & from ignorant sexually repressed psychopants.As British historian lord acton stated when pius ix condemned democracy, just because a pope goes crazy doesn^t mean a catholic has to.There^s no mention of contraception in bible,onan got killed for not following a levite tradition of fathering a child for his deceased brothers wife.Usury condemed in scripture,the church fathers & councils nicae,vienne,lateran under any circumstance is now practiced by the Vatican bank.What happened to teachings on usury,condemnation of freedom of press,democracy,slavery being moral etc all taught by popes----they all went out the window because the people(who are the church)rejected these nonsenses.You see their is the doctrine of Reception.The people must recieve a teaching.If they don6t further on down the road it gets changed

 

[edwest2]

He is not wrong. But Church yet has to reply to challenges which were given- both theological and practical.

The Church did reply, but in a carefully coordinated attack, was denounced by those inside and outside the Church. God has a logical, rational plan for the use of human sexuality. The practical part was severely damaged by small, outside groups that were wolves in sheep’s clothing. “Peace, man. Peace, brother.” “Hey man, if it feels good, do it.” Followed by an underground media campaign that became more and more overt as the years passed. Separating sex from love was and still is, the goal.

Pope Paul VI called in others to advise him prior to allowing the encyclical to be published, and he rejected their findings, which, not surprisingly, were in favor of some change.

The practical questions facing each human being are: Who decides when you have sex? The State? The Church? And - Who is in control of your sexual faculties?

I submit it was the media, and others, that convinced each of us: “No, you cannot control yourself.” (True or false?) And - “Contraception will prevent ‘unwanted’ pregnancies.”

No artificial birth control method is 100% effective.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Abu]

kalbertone #132
onan got killed for not following a levite tradition of fathering a child for his deceased brothers wife.

The erroneous feelings you exhibit about the teaching of the Church show that you know nothing about Her, nor the subjects you raise.

Apparently this poster has difficulty with understanding facts also:
Post #85: “Onan was obligated to give a child to Tamar and did not want to give his deceased brother a child, so he used coitus interruptus contraception. Not giving his deceased brother a child was not a capital offense! The Church has explained his objective behavior of masturbation and coitus interruptus as sinful, which is Her teaching.

Pope Pius XI has interpreted that Onan was killed by God for contraception, well established from St Augustine, and the CCC refers us to that.

tinyurl.com/3b4z4d5
Fr John Echert is an authority on Sacred Scripture
Onan’s sin
Answer by Fr. John Echert (EWTN)on May-14-2006:
“The penalty imposed by Mosaic Law was not a death sentence upon the guilty brother but public humiliation–a far cry from execution. This leads us to conclude that the death punishment upon Onan was not for his failure to raise up posterity for his deceased brother, but for the crime of wasting the seed upon the ground–a primitive and vulgar form of contraception. Incidentally, with regards to contraception, many people today are ignorant of the fact that many forms of contraception actually act as an abortifacient–they kill the newly conceived child in some manner.”

 

[gkrohm]

fnr makes a good response to the original question of this thread: Why do most Catholics ignore Humane Vitae? To varying degrees, Catholics “in the pews” Sunday understand the Churches teaching, but regardless of their level of instruction, they just are not buying the official doctrine. I think it is wishful thinking to believe that if pastors would preach more strongly and counsel more effectively, their flock would line up and fly straight. Most pastors know that they would get politely ignored at best, and scolded at worst, if they vigorously prompted church doctrine. So they hush up on the issue of birth control. I can say with certainty that after daily mass attendance for most of the last 10 years I have NEVER heard a priest say one thing about artificial birth control (except perhaps mentioning ABC in passing or in a list of sinful practices). It just isn’t something that Catholics discuss in public forums. As fnr notes, Catholic doctors seem to ignore the doctrine. As time goes on, the Catholic position is going to look more and more antique and out of step with the very people that attend mass, volunteer for church ministries, and support the church in many different ways.

 

[serviichristii]

Because they don’t love God more than anything else in the world.
That’ the simple answer.

You could go on about their need for justification but at the end of the day, why are they coming to Mass if they don’t want to adhere to the teachings of the Church (e.g. infallibility and associated doctrine)? Do they honestly think they’ll gain salvation just by maintaining a record of attendance? Catholicism isn’t just about ‘obeying the rules’; it’s also about having a personal relationship with God. How can one have a personal relationship with God if he/she places personal pleasure above God’s laws (they are his laws and that is not arguable).

They will know soon enough that they were wrong. For those who are interested in this topic, one should read the Theology of the Body. If you need help in finding that resource, PM me please

 

[vera_dicere]

The same reason a child ignores their parents when they tell them not to shake the presents under the tree. The parent knows its fragile, they know what’s in there, but the child, silly, selfish and very curious shake their present, and then on Christmas day, are dismayed to find the fragile toy within broken.

People who disobey God and the Church on this teaching are like that child, they think they know better. They don’t and obviously they don’t have the reasoning or the understanding to to grasp the teaching.

 

[serviichristii]

The same reason a child ignores their parents when they tell them not to shake the presents under the tree. The parent knows its fragile, they know what’s in there, and like a silly, selfish and very curious child they shake their present, and then on Christmas day, are dismayed to find the fragile toy within broken.

well worded.

 

[fpt]

Why Do Most Catholics Ignore Humane Vitae?

Because there are two principal types of critics from different catholic movements:

Firstly, the traditionalist or traditional thinkers who are okay with the conclusions but who are not okay on the philosophical and theological approach. They are against the intellectual method that is in the document because, it would be very modern not in link with the tradition, a method too much human, not very spiritual, not much vatican the II.
Then the problem of the responsible procreation; Principle of marriage, or a simple exception and a simple tolerance. Responsible procreation would be not a purpose of the marriage. The first is procreation (primary finalities). Plus, the sense of words " grave" and “serious” reasons. The big problem of the interpretation.

Secondly, because people are very lazy for understand the true meaning of love. and there is a misunderstanding on the true message.

Direct and voluntary contraception is wrong and sinful.
Indirect and involuntary contraception is okay.

Direct and voluntary abortion is wrong and sinful.
Indiract and involuntary abortion is okay.

The problem is to define correctly indirect and involuntary???

 

[kalbertone]

The erroneous feelings you exhibit about the teaching of the Church show that you know nothing about Her, nor the subjects you raise.

Apparently this poster has difficulty with understanding facts also:
Post #85: “Onan was obligated to give a child to Tamar and did not want to give his deceased brother a child, so he used coitus interruptus contraception. Not giving his deceased brother a child was not a capital offense! The Church has explained his objective behavior of masturbation and coitus interruptus as sinful, which is Her teaching.

Pope Pius XI has interpreted that Onan was killed by God for contraception, well established from St Augustine, and the CCC refers us to that.

tinyurl.com/3b4z4d5
Fr John Echert is an authority on Sacred Scripture
Onan’s sin
Answer by Fr. John Echert (EWTN)on May-14-2006:
“The penalty imposed by Mosaic Law was not a death sentence upon the guilty brother but public humiliation–a far cry from execution. This leads us to conclude that the death punishment upon Onan was not for his failure to raise up posterity for his deceased brother, but for the crime of wasting the seed upon the ground–a primitive and vulgar form of contraception. Incidentally, with regards to contraception, many people today are ignorant of the fact that many forms of contraception actually act as an abortifacient–they kill the newly conceived child in some manner.”