Why Do Most Catholics Ignore Humane Vitae?

[kalbertone]

kalbertone:
Outside of revelation it is irrelevat what the church fathers say.If you support what the church fathers say then you must accept—sex in marriage is a necessarry evil tolerated by venial sin,usury under any circumstance is to be condemned----that includes anybody here getting interest from the banks,women are inferior to men & dangerous temptations to sin.The Catholic church doesn^t teach this nonsense.

 

[jimcintosh]

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.

Core teaching? There is a God who created everything. Jesus Christ is the second person of God, and the Spirit is the third person in the Trinity. Jesus Christ is risen. Abraham, the prophets, Mary, the Apostles, salvation: these are part of the core teachings of the Church. Look at the catechism. Parts one and two are about the very nature of God. Part three is the application in our lives. ABC does not appear until paragraph 2370.

I am not saying that it, nor any part of the catechism, is not important. But, there is a hierarchy of importance and there are things much more “core” than ABC.

I can see how someone can believe in all of the mystery of God, the sacraments, everything except paragraph 2370 and want to dedicate his or her life to it.

 

[Abu]

LaSainte #176
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.

What do you not understand and why should you disagree, from a study of Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae?

jimcintosh #181
there is a hierarchy of importance and there are things much more “core” than ABC.

You don’t decide that, but the Church does, and the doctrine against contraception is infallible, it is part of the incredibly important morals, and has always been condemned. Infallible teaching covers both faith and morals. You can learn of the importance from Timothy Cardinal Dolan who laments the neglect.

 

[Abu]

kalbertone #147
At Vatican II a proposed amendment to make the infallibility of the Magisterium the source of the people^s infallibilty. This was REJECTED by the council as going against tradition. The German Popes at Vatican 1 stated they would accept papal infallibilty only if the people----RECIEVED the teaching. Pope Pius the IX before declaring the Dogma of the Immaculate conception polled the Bishops to see how the people were RECIEVING the teaching
#155
Contraception used in good conscience to space births when needed is fine…

You have dissented from the infallible doctrine in *Casti Connubii *and Humanae Vitae.
Bl John Paul II has reaffirmed: “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].

You obviously know nothing about the teaching of Vatican I or II and now have rejected them as quoted to you in post #158, that a real Catholic is guided by and obeys the teaching of the Magisterium. As a dissenter you are not a real Catholic – as clearly revealed.

Further you have wantonly disregarded the rules and the fact that this thread is about the infallibility and relevance of Humanae Vitae, and tried to bring in extraneous matters such as slavery and usury.

 

[HOLY_POOH_FAN]

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.

 

[HOLY_POOH_FAN]

I do not for one minute doubt the sincerity of this Comment-ator, nor would I dare judge his and his wife’s integrity. I do wish you both well, help others in similar straits. I see no slippery slope here, the intention is good, in your circumstances I see no moral evil. You are trying not to kill your wife with a pregnancy that would kill her, and you are desiring to show mutual love. For others, than might be “using” each other. Not you as it looks to me.

 

[HOLY_POOH_FAN]

You have dissented from the infallible doctrine in *Casti Connubii *and Humanae Vitae.
Bl John Paul II has reaffirmed: “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].

You obviously know nothing about the teaching of Vatican I or II and now have rejected them as quoted to you in post #158, that a real Catholic is guided by and obeys the teaching of the Magisterium. As a dissenter you are not a real Catholic – as clearly revealed.

Further you have wantonly disregarded the rules and the fact that this thread is about the infallibility and relevance of Humanae Vitae, and tried to bring in extraneous matters such as slavery and usury.

=========That is neither fair nor just to the sincere man’s comment. Read my reply to him and I aasure you I am as deeply loyal and Catholic as you are, and guarantee I have had more education and experience as a Catholic professor and counselor than you coulod ever have. Not bragging, I thank God daily for my gifts and talents and use them ieven now in retirement for His Glory. Please balance MERCY and Compassion with your dictates. Nuance is key to some particular ansewers, thie reply to this man’s specific comment was not nuanced.

 

[fix]

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 ?

The point is you are mistaken, to put it kindly.

 

[fix]

It is sad, and disappointing to see the personal comments on here.

What is sad is to see people reject magisterial authority.

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,

Pardon me, but with all respect, what you say here seems inchoate to me.

 

[OriginalJS]

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.

That’s right! Birth control is birth control no matter how it is achieved, the sole exception being abstinence. Using sophistry to evade the issue (e.g. “the couple can still be open to life”) by doesn’t change the fact that a sophisticated effort to avoid pregnancy is being implemented. The argument that NFP doesn’t always work and the woman may become pregnant is not valid. No method of birth control is totally effective, all have a failure rate. If the legality of birth control methods depended on their not working sometimes, then all would be licit. And, as you point out, NFP is not “natural.” A little reading on the details of implementing it should be enough to convince most that it is highly structured and far from spontaneous or natural.

 

[OriginalJS]

Core teaching? There is a God who created everything. Jesus Christ is the second person of God, and the Spirit is the third person in the Trinity. Jesus Christ is risen. Abraham, the prophets, Mary, the Apostles, salvation: these are part of the core teachings of the Church. Look at the catechism. Parts one and two are about the very nature of God. Part three is the application in our lives. ABC does not appear until paragraph 2370.

I am not saying that it, nor any part of the catechism, is not important. But, there is a hierarchy of importance and there are things much more “core” than ABC.

I can see how someone can believe in all of the mystery of God, the sacraments, everything except paragraph 2370 and want to dedicate his or her life to it.

The core teaching of the Church is in the Creeds which are recited at Mass.

 

[Mojoala]

Yes, I agree, the Nicene correctly reflects the core teaching. In my honest opinion Humane Vitae is like Suicide. For years and years Catholics, Cradle and Converts alike swore up and down that if you committed Suicide, you bought yourself a one way ticket to hell. They swore up and down that this was Doctrine. Now this teaching has changed. When an why did it change? Was because Priests started to commit suicide themselves? In the last 10 years, there have been at least 3 Priests to commit suicide in our Diocese alone.

His Humane Vitae truely Doctrine or is it just Dogma?

I would say in my honest opinion that it is just a Dogmatic Issue. Just look at the Spanish Inquistion which is just one of many atroticities that occured under the Magisterium. Was the concept of Humane Vitae believed then?

 

[fix]

Yes, I agree, the Nicene correctly reflects the core teaching. In my honest opinion Humane Vitae is like Suicide. For years and years Catholics, Cradle and Converts alike swore up and down that if you committed Suicide, you bought yourself a one way ticket to hell. They swore up and down that this was Doctrine. Now this teaching has changed. When an why did it change? Was because Priests started to commit suicide themselves? In the last 10 years, there have been at least 3 Priests to commit suicide in our Diocese alone.

His Humane Vitae truely Doctrine or is it just Dogma?

I would say in my honest opinion that it is just a Dogmatic Issue. Just look at the Spanish Inquistion which is just one of many atroticities that occured under the Magisterium. Was the concept of Humane Vitae believed then?

Suicide is a sin. No change

Inquisitions were not immoral. Some may have acted immorally, but no teaching is wrong.

 

[jimcintosh]

Inquisitions were not immoral. Some may have acted immorally, but no teaching is wrong.

So, the use of torture was moral but now isn’t. Or, are you saying that only those inquisitors who used torture were acting immoral? Since the use of torture was universal in many inquisitions, are you saying that all those involved in those inquisitions were acting immorally, but that the enterprise in which they were engaged was moral? That sounds feeble at best.

How about the practice of “relaxing heretics to the secular arm” for execution? Was it then immoral to do so? Or was it then moral but would now be immoral?

Taking into account Catechism 2267, which says that the death penalty is immoral if “non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor” – the aggressor being, in this case, the heretic. Since the Inquisition, itself, condemned many heretics to imprisonment without relaxing them, clearly non-lethal means were available.

Has morality changed? Was the death penalty then moral but is not now? If morality doesn’t change, then one would have to say that the Inquisition acted immorally in both its use of torture and relaxing heretics to the secular arm for horrid executions.

 

[jimcintosh]

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

Humane Vitae is very clear that the use of artificial birth control for the purposes of controlling or regulating births is clearly immoral. It says nothing about the use of these methods for reasons which are unrelated to regulating births.

Benedict XVI has now made clear that barrier methods (e.g., condoms) are acceptable if used for the intent of blocking the spread of disease, such as the the HIV virus, although, as pointed out by Paul VI in HV, still immoral if used with the intent of regulating births. See this link.

Although what the pope said got confused with his introduction of a male prostitute and sex outside of marriage, I think that a better example would be a marriage where one spouse was infected with HIV and the other not. The use of condoms within that marriage, where the sole purpose was to save the life of the other spouse, would be moral.

So, the bishop and priests you asked were correct. They were agreeing with the pope. There are circumstances were the use of ABC is okay.

 

[igor1980]

Humane Vitae
Benedict XVI has now made clear that barrier methods (e.g., condoms) are acceptable if used for the intent of blocking the spread of disease, such as the the HIV virus, although, as pointed out by Paul VI in HV, still immoral if used with the intent of regulating births. See this link.

Although what the pope said got confused with his introduction of a male prostitute and sex outside of marriage, I think that a better example would be a marriage where one spouse was infected with HIV and the other not. The use of condoms within that marriage, where the sole purpose was to save the life of the other spouse, would be moral.

So, the bishop and priests you asked were correct. They were agreeing with the pope. There are circumstances were the use of ABC is okay.

I think that it’s you who are confused with Church’s Doctrine. Contraception methods are never allowed, and therefore the use of condoms(for sex, of course) is forbidden in any circumstance. The Pope never told that it’s ok to use condoms. He said that using condoms could be “a first step towards moralisation”. And by the way, his Light of the World book doesn’t constitutes church teaching, but just a personal opinion.

 

[davidv]

Humane Vitae is very clear that the use of artificial birth control for the purposes of controlling or regulating births is clearly immoral. It says nothing about the use of these methods for reasons which are unrelated to regulating births.

Benedict XVI has now made clear that barrier methods (e.g., condoms) are acceptable if used for the intent of blocking the spread of disease, such as the the HIV virus, although, as pointed out by Paul VI in HV, still immoral if used with the intent of regulating births. See this link.

Your claim and the link you provided is not the truth. Please go to the vatican website and read what the Pope actually said instead of what some anti-catholic says he said.

Although what the pope said got confused with his introduction of a male prostitute and sex outside of marriage, I think that a better example would be a marriage where one spouse was infected with HIV and the other not. The use of condoms within that marriage, where the sole purpose was to save the life of the other spouse, would be moral.

So, the bishop and priests you asked were correct. They were agreeing with the pope. There are circumstances were the use of ABC is okay.

ABC is never acceptable. The drugs used in ABC may used to treat disease. Fertility is not a disease.

 

[LaSainte]

What do you not understand and why should you disagree, from a study of Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae?
You don’t decide that, but the Church does, and the doctrine against contraception is infallible, it is part of the incredibly important morals, and has always been condemned. Infallible teaching covers both faith and morals. You can learn of the importance from Timothy Cardinal Dolan who laments the neglect.

Ok, so maybe it’s not a “core teaching” , but it is a major one, one that according to the Church, falls under “grave matter” and therefore carries with it the weight of possible mortal sin.

What do I not understand? To be honest, I think I understand all of the arguments that the Church has brought forward, I simply fail to find them compelling. I feel as if for every argument against ABC, there is another area in Catholic teaching where the same line of reasoning doesn’t apply at all. I feel as if the Church says ABC is wrong simply because they believe it to be wrong and that no decent argument separates ABC from NFP. I feel as if we would be better off if they simply said,“Because we said so-believe it or don’t”. I feel as if that would be more intellectually honest. It’s like in debate class where you’re given a conclusion and you have to argue for it. Sometimes the arguments just sound contrived and fabricated, when in reality, I’m not sure the Church even knows why they believe ABC to be wrong.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying this isn’t a truth that has been given by the Holy Spirit. To be honest, I don’t know. But I don’t think the Church has a really strong grasp of it either, which is why so many of the faithful struggle with the teaching. The original arguments all centered on a misunderstanding of human biology and anatomy, so the more modern arguments are centered on a more touchy-feely approach a la TOB. I don’t think any of them have nailed it thus far.

 

[gkrohm]

Ok, so maybe it’s not a “core teaching” , but it is a major one, one that according to the Church, falls under “grave matter” and therefore carries with it the weight of possible mortal sin.

What do I not understand? To be honest, I think I understand all of the arguments that the Church has brought forward, I simply fail to find them compelling. I feel as if for every argument against ABC, there is another area in Catholic teaching where the same line of reasoning doesn’t apply at all. I feel as if the Church says ABC is wrong simply because they believe it to be wrong and that no decent argument separates ABC from NFP. I feel as if we would be better off if they simply said,“Because we said so-believe it or don’t”. I feel as if that would be more intellectually honest. It’s like in debate class where you’re given a conclusion and you have to argue for it. Sometimes the arguments just sound contrived and fabricated, when in reality, I’m not sure the Church even knows why they believe ABC to be wrong.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying this isn’t a truth that has been given by the Holy Spirit. To be honest, I don’t know. But I don’t think the Church has a really strong grasp of it either, which is why so many of the faithful struggle with the teaching. The original arguments all centered on a misunderstanding of human biology and anatomy, so the more modern arguments are centered on a more touchy-feely approach a la TOB. I don’t think any of them have nailed it thus far.

Thanks LaSante for the clear statement. I share your heartfelt confusion over the position of the Church and the difficulty of practicing Catholics to understand and follow it.

 

[Abu]

LaSainte #198
Ok, so maybe it’s not a “core teaching” , but it is a major one, one that according to the Church, falls under “grave matter” and therefore carries with it the weight of possible mortal sin.

Of course, with intention and full knowledge, contraception is “grave sin”. The only way to follow Christ is to listen to and know what His Church teaches – not concocted “core” teaching.

So get to know the reality of faith:
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])

I feel as if the Church says ABC is wrong simply because they believe it to be wrong and that no decent argument separates ABC from NFP. I don’t know. But I don’t think the Church has a really strong grasp of it either.

“Feeling” never helps reason nor faith or morals.

Unless and until you take the trouble to really think with the Church through study and reason you will continue to languish in confusion, as will all those others who blame the Church and indulge their own prejudices.

**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].

INTENT
Answer by Fr. Stephen F. Torraco on June-16-2006:
“First of fall, it should be pointed out that the prevention of conception is NOT the primary purpose of natural family planning. The primary purpose of NFP is to enable husband and wife to cooperate with God as co-creators as knowingly and as willingly as possible. In so doing, husband and wife deepen their marital bond and their exclusively marital spirituality.
“Secondly, NFP is morally legitimate as a means of prevention of conception for serious reasons and contraception is not because NFP respects and does not violate the intimate link between the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act in God’s created design. Contraception violates that link. Taking insulin and high blood pressure medicine has as its aim assisting God’s created design in the human body. Contraception has no such aim. It aims at violating that design.”
tinyurl.com/cgr8x5c