Why Do Most Catholics Ignore Humane Vitae?

[kalbertone]

It is sad, and disappointing to see the personal comments on here. The Jewish and Christian Tradition from the Bible and practice is to avoid non-natural birth regulation, up to and including the modern version of NFP which is a scientific approach to that goal. Careful of erroneous quotes from the Fathers or saints, especially before the 19th century when the female ovum was discovered and in the 13th when little was known medically about what happens in the womb- Aquinas thought a boy soul was created before a girl soul and similar nonsense.
It is not easy for all Christians to have the discipline to respect each other and follow the female body’s own cycle of fertility. The Evangelicals do not believe in chemical and barrier birth prevention, and some Jewish rabbis offer assistance for the women who have an unusual cycle. Sadly, there has not been enough positive mention given to proper education and formation about the topic for marriage preparation and not enough medicallly informed people who can offer such teaching. HUMANAE VITAE was NOT about birth prevention, it was a warning about what would happen, and it did in torrents, when humans separate the sacramental-physical sign of a couple’s unity within marriage. Vatican 11 put the purposes of marriage together in one sentence, before that they were primary and secondary. They are for parenthood and mutual support- that covers all situations, even if infertile or past chld bearing years,

 

[kalbertone]

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.

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.

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

 

[kalbertone]

What does this mean? How many people, through the ages, must agree? Can the Holy Spirit say one thing through the magisterium and another through people who reject the magisterium?
AS vatican II Taught,the Church is more than the Pope.It is the people Of God

Not if they contradict the Church. Christ said he who hears you hears Me and he who rejects you rejects Me. That is clear. Then Why was Pope Honorius Condemned for heresy at the 3rd coincil of Constantinople,Pope Vagilius excommunicated by a african Synod of Bishops,Pope John XII taught when one dies he doesn^t see the Beatific vision.Only after the resurrection one sees it etc

When did the magisterium teach error? Not individual bishops. Usury was condemned By Councils Arles,Nicae,Carthage,Lateran under any circumstance.In the late 1800s the holy office issued a decree that stated those who charge interest at moderate rates are to be left alone.The Vatican bank charges usury today.Even in times past only a small % of teachings are infallible.When thru the holy SpiriT^s guidance it is dtermined that the Church at large recievs or rejects a teaching,that teaching is either affirmed or revised.ts a long complex historical reality ancient tradition

This is a serious error.

 

[kalbertone]

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.
Since when are the Church Fathers infallible.They followed Greek paganism in understanding sexuality not the scriptures.Augustine taught unbaptized children go to hell

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.The church fathers hailed the body as impure,sex in marriage a necessarry evil all to the disgrace of the creator who used sexual imagery at times in scripture to describe love for his people.One retard father origen cut off his sexual member because it led him to sin.Augustine felt guilty getting erections.In today^s climate they all would of been sent for physchiatric help.

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. Still considered a venial sin ? Not by God,Not by the Couple & not by virtue of reason.Paul warned that doctrines of Demons would arise in the church.These early fathers teachings are based on greek paganism,fear,& severe sexual repression.The Church(which is the People) always rejected this ignorant foolishness.Not to mention there dgradation of women. My sox know more or have a better understanding on sexuality than these psychopants. Remember this has nothing to do with rvelation,its just fantasy & insanity masquerading as theology

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

 

[fix]

kalbertone:
You list all the usual anti Catholic canards. They have been refuted time and again.

 

[igor1980]

All the priests I asked, even a Bishop, told me that there are circumstances where ABC is ok.

How can the Church expect that lay catholics accept her teaching on this matter, while even the priests and Bishops don’t?

Why the Church, as She does with abortion and gay marriage, does not talk about this matter more often? Or anybody here have seen priests addressing this issue in sermons?

My conclusion is that Church is promoting ignorance on the sinfulness of ABC. You’re not guilty of sin if you don’t know that what you’re doing is a sin.

 

[Nate13]

All the priests I asked, even a Bishop, told me that there are circumstances where ABC is ok.

How can the Church expect that lay catholics accept her teaching on this matter, while even the priests and Bishops don’t?

Why the Church, as She does with abortion and gay marriage, does not talk about this matter more often? Or anybody here have seen priests addressing this issue in sermons?

My conclusion is that Church is promoting ignorance on the sinfulness of ABC. You’re not guilty of sin if you don’t know that what you’re doing is a sin.

Yes I have heard sermons. Many priests do not give sermons on it because it is a very sensitive issue and its hard to fit the explanation of it all in one sermon. Only half explaining something even if the part you explain is completely right, can be damaging because it will cause misunderstandings. The Theology of the Body really can’t be fit into a sermon. Many of these hopefully promote classes that go over the “Theology of the Body” and even offer them at the church. That is where you will learn the most of this subject anyways, by taking a class or reading books on the subject.

 

[LaSainte]

I sometimes wonder if the Church has a general “no ABC” rule for everyone, but tells priests that they are allowed to tell people it’s ok in certain circumstances on a pastoral level. Otherwise, I truly cannot imagine so many priests just going against Church teaching like that. Why would some 50% or more of priests just decide to completely disregard Church teaching when they have given their whole lives to it? It doesn’t make sense unless they are being told something different. I’m probably wrong, but I find this baffling.

 

[davidv]

I sometimes wonder if the Church has a general “no ABC” rule for everyone, but tells priests that they are allowed to tell people it’s ok in certain circumstances on a pastoral level. Otherwise, I truly cannot imagine so many priests just going against Church teaching like that. Why would some 50% or more of priests just decide to completely disregard Church teaching when they have given their whole lives to it? It doesn’t make sense unless they are being told something different. I’m probably wrong, but I find this baffling.

I don’t believe your statistics. Do you have a reliable source?

A church that would do you are speculating, is not the Church with Christ as her Groom.

People sin and teach wrongs things, no matter whether the are a part of the hierachy, or not.

Are you baffled by the presence of sin?

 

[LaSainte]

I don’t believe your statistics. Do you have a reliable source?

A church that would do you are speculating, is not the Church with Christ as her Groom.

People sin and teach wrongs things, no matter whether the are a part of the hierachy, or not.

Are you baffled by the presence of sin?

I don’t have any statistics, but everyone on this board seems to be saying that almost every priest they talk to says ABC is sometimes ok. I just wonder occasionally if the Church forbids it as the norm but if someone prayerfully seeks the advice of a priest, they may leave it up to their discretion. I’m not baffled by the presence of sin so much, but these numbers are HUGE.

 

[davidv]

I don’t have any statistics, but everyone on this board seems to be saying that almost every priest they talk to says ABC is sometimes ok. I just wonder occasionally if the Church forbids it as the norm but if someone prayerfully seeks the advice of a priest, they may leave it up to their discretion. I’m not baffled by the presence of sin so much, but these numbers are HUGE.

Those numbers that you say are HUGE are ficticious. Jesus established a Church and sent the Holy Spirit to protect it from error. Your wondering is not warranted.

 

[Rico_S]

I sometimes wonder if the Church has a general “no ABC” rule for everyone, but tells priests that they are allowed to tell people it’s ok in certain circumstances on a pastoral level. Otherwise, I truly cannot imagine so many priests just going against Church teaching like that. Why would some 50% or more of priests just decide to completely disregard Church teaching when they have given their whole lives to it? It doesn’t make sense unless they are being told something different. I’m probably wrong, but I find this baffling.

Furthermore, it makes zero sense that so many catholics simply disregard the church’s position on ABC, and yet there is almost a deafening silence from the pulpit. It sure doesn’t seem to be a “grave” issue to the church…at least from what I have seen.

The only priest I have ever heard speak out on ABC as more than a point in a list was a FSSP priest speaking to a precana group. And, sadly, he started going off on so many bizarre tangents and spent a good chunk of his time talking about traces of the hormones of birth control pills that are now in our water system causing homosexuality within the population. I don’t think his talk was terribly effective.

 

[Nate13]

I don’t have any statistics, but everyone on this board seems to be saying that almost every priest they talk to says ABC is sometimes ok. I just wonder occasionally if the Church forbids it as the norm but if someone prayerfully seeks the advice of a priest, they may leave it up to their discretion. I’m not baffled by the presence of sin so much, but these numbers are HUGE.

Humane Vitae specifically has sections that it devotes to speaking to priest and bishops:

To Priests

1. And now, beloved sons, you who are priests, you who in virtue of your sacred office act as counselors and spiritual leaders both of individual men and women and of families—We turn to you filled with great confidence. For it is your principal duty—We are speaking especially to you who teach moral theology—to spell out clearly and completely the Church’s teaching on marriage. In the performance of your ministry you must be the first to give an example of that sincere obedience, inward as well as outward, which is due to the magisterium of the Church. For, as you know, the pastors of the Church enjoy a special light of the Holy Spirit in teaching the truth. (39) And this, rather than the arguments they put forward, is why you are bound to such obedience. Nor will it escape you that if men’s peace of soul and the unity of the Christian people are to be preserved, then it is of the utmost importance that in moral as well as in dogmatic theology all should obey the magisterium of the Church and should speak as with one voice. Therefore We make Our own the anxious words of the great Apostle Paul and with all Our heart We renew Our appeal to you: “I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.” (40)

To Bishops

1. And now as We come to the end of this encyclical letter, We turn Our mind to you, reverently and lovingly, beloved and venerable brothers in the episcopate, with whom We share more closely the care of the spiritual good of the People of God. For We invite all of you, We implore you, to give a lead to your priests who assist you in the sacred ministry, and to the faithful of your dioceses, and to devote yourselves with all zeal and without delay to safeguarding the holiness of marriage, in order to guide married life to its full human and Christian perfection. Consider this mission as one of your most urgent responsibilities at the present time. As you well know, it calls for concerted pastoral action in every field of human diligence, economic, cultural and social. If simultaneous progress is made in these various fields, then the intimate life of parents and children in the family will be rendered not only more tolerable, but easier and more joyful. And life together in human society will be enriched with fraternal charity and made more stable with true peace when God’s design which He conceived for the world is faithfully followed.

Past threads have explained the reasons why there are so many priests that have been led astray AND what has been done about it to correct it.

 

[davidv]

Furthermore, it makes zero sense that so many catholics simply disregard the church’s position on ABC, and yet there is almost a deafening silence from the pulpit.

You are very right. Sin is the epitomy of senselessness. Those who allow Satan, or themselves, to be their ruler are clearly senseless.

It sure doesn’t seem to be a “grave” issue to the church…at least from what I have seen.

The only priest I have ever heard speak out on ABC as more than a point in a list was a FSSP priest speaking to a precana group. And, sadly, he started going off on so many bizarre tangents and spent a good chunk of his time talking about traces of the hormones of birth control pills that are now in our water system causing homosexuality within the population. I don’t think his talk was terribly effective.

Truth exist in the teachings of the Church, independent of if anyone knows it, likes it, or believes it.

 

[Nate13]

I believe at one point in the early Church there was great division on the issue of Christ’s divinity and humanity and what Christ’s relationship to the Father was and how it all worked out. People consider Early Church Fathers were on opposite sides of the issue even. The issue arose, Rome felt the call to respond, a council was called, a decision was made, and eventually everyone fell into line. The existence of great disagreements is nothing new in the Church, but Rome has spoke and the Truth will eventually win out.

 

[LaSainte]

I just find it strange. This is a teaching that has been really hard to come to terms with for me as a Catholic because I have deep personal disagreements with it, although I do follow it in an effort to remain in communion with the Church. I find it bizarre that someone who not only has their own personal disagreements with a core teaching of the Church, but would actively tell others not to follow it, yet would give up thier entire life to devote to that same Church. It doesn’t make sense.

 

[Nate13]

I just find it strange. This is a teaching that has been really hard to come to terms with for me as a Catholic because I have deep personal disagreements with it, although I do follow it in an effort to remain in communion with the Church. I find it bizarre that someone who not only has their own personal disagreements with a core teaching of the Church, but would actively tell others not to follow it, yet would give up thier entire life to devote to that same Church. It doesn’t make sense.

The problem is the seminary they went to when they first became a priest did not tell them the Truth on this issue. There were many seminaries who were in dissent and believed the Church would change its mind 40-50 years ago. They taught their seminarians incorrectly and thus we feel the pain of that today. So in answer to your question its highly likely that many of priests referred to here did not believe they were devoting themselves to a Church they disagreed with. They were misled and we get to deal with the consequences for a generation or two.

 

[LaSainte]

The problem is the seminary they went to when they first became a priest did not tell them the Truth on this issue. There were many seminaries who were in dissent and believed the Church would change its mind 40-50 years ago. They taught their seminarians incorrectly and thus we feel the pain of that today. So in answer to your question its highly likely that many of priests referred to here did not believe they were devoting themselves to a Church they disagreed with. They were misled and we get to deal with the consequences for a generation or two.

That is a real shame. Hopefully this is being corrected today so that the priests are making an informed decision about what to do with their lives and so that they then pass the truth of Church teachings onto us Catholics. I feel a bit cheated myself that this was not impressed upon me growing up because it would be easier for me to follow now had I been properly catechized back then. It may be an unpopular “rule” but it doesn’t do anyone any good not to hear it.

 

[mitex]

Why do protestants ignore Catholic teaching altogether? Same reason Catholics do.

 

[kalbertone]

You list all the usual anti Catholic canards. They have been refuted time and again.

Ant-Catholic Canard ? Well you too must be anti Catholic if you support or feel Democracy is a legitimate form of Government(Condemned by Pius IX), Slavery is immoral(Pius IX argued it is fine doesn^t go against Natural law),Girls & boys can^t be Taught in the same class at school—co-education(condemned by Pius XI) etc. I could go on forever but what^s the point ?