Why Do Most Catholics Ignore Humane Vitae?

[Abu]

HOLY POOH FAN #259
I can however say definitively that the birth prevention methods that are condemned are not infallibly stated as such

What arrogance and contempt for the Magisterium.

As the Forum Master, fix, has so pertinently quoted from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the ordinary and universal Magisterium is infallible because a truth “has been constantly maintained and held by Tradition and transmitted by the ordinary, universal Magisterium.”
“In fact, the truth and irreformability of a doctrine depends on the depositum fide, transmitted by Scripture and Tradition, while infallibility refers only to the degree of certitude of an act of magisterial teaching.”

So “definitively”, the dissent of others, whether they consider themselves “holy” or not, is quite unimportant except to define them as dissenters resulting in misleading the flock.

But infallibility has been made quite clear.
Post #241:
Vatican I Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius:
“8. Wherefore, by divine and Catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in Scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal Magisterium.
vaxxine.com/pjm/vaticanI.htm

Post #234:
This is the assent required by the Australian Bishops in 1976:
“The Episcopal Conference informs the Directors of Catholic Family Planning Centres and Priests connected with this work, that the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church contained in Humanae Vitae that ‘every action…to render procreation impossible’ is ‘intrinsically evil’….binds the conscience of all without ambiguity and excludes the possibility of a probable opinion opposed to this teaching.”

Post #223:
Again, every papal doctrine which meets the criteria below is ex cathedra and infallible.
From Vatican I (*Pastor Aeternus), *for infallibility to be exercised the Pope must teach
(a) ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter), that is as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians,
(b) speaking with Peter’s apostolic authority to the whole Church,
(c) defining a doctrine of faith and morals

Post #222
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])

Thus is “the degree of certitude of an act of magisterial teaching” (CDF, above) known.

The feeling that prejudices, selfism, wants, desires, feelings, wishes should prevail over Magisterial teaching is appallingly irrational and might be excused only for malformed Catholics or for non-Catholics.

 

[HOLY_POOH_FAN]

Read my entire piece. I made it quite clear that a teaching that is not infallibly defined can still be true. Your arrogance on here, pouncing on every apparent dissent makes me so “unfriending” this whole topic because of your superior higher up in the Church than the rest of us… Lighten up and discuss, there is one Pope - he does nor need you to undermine rational discussion. Get out there and convince the real dissenters among the clergy and laity.

 

[Abu]

When HOLY POOH FAN retracts the error that:
“I can however say definitively that the birth prevention methods that are condemned are not infallibly stated as such”
readers will know, simply, that he has not only admitted the error but is wise and faithful enough to do so and does not intend to mislead readers. It has been, as is clear, infallibly defined.

It is Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) which requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
Canon 750.2:
“Each and every proposition stated definitively by the Magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of the faith or morals, that is, each and every proposition required for the sacred preservation and faithful explanation of the same deposit of faith, must also be firmly embraced and maintained; anyone, therefore, who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church."

The doctrine against contraception cannot be truthfully said to be Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) requiring intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”).

No one can set themselves up against the Magisterium and claim to be a real Catholic.

 

[HOLY_POOH_FAN]

Sorry Abu you still do not understand the difference between declared infallible and what is to the accepted. Augustine gave us LIMBO, died in 431, BXV1 dropped it recently. It was universally taught, babies were buried in non-consecrated ground, parents mourned with their families and communities no Mass. Isaw it as a child with my neighbi=ours’ twin babies- the Dad carrying two little coffins to the grave outside the “blessed” part of the cemetery. It horrified me, the sadness as a very sensitive reigious child. Never “infallible” as such but by golly we were all taught it as revealed, and the Liturgy accepted that. Your reply to me was another example of your desire to be superior so bye bye from here.

 

[Chrono13]

The facts from *Humanae Vitae *10: “From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out. (10)”

As we have already pointed in post 257, Humanae Vitae is problematic document once it chooses NFP as allowable method of birth regulation. Too many sacrifices were made by layman in the past, while this technique was still considered contraception by bishops, in order to upheld their prohibition. Terms as “constant teaching” are pretty heavy, once you recall their existance, and how loyal they were.

Where besmirchers, dissenters, sneerers and jeerers fail is in lacking simple fidelity to the Magisterium rather than the fantasy of a “parallel magisterium” of theologians, and their own concoctions. Of course any comments that disagree with the Magisterial teaching have no value against the infallibility of the Popes teaching faith and morals.

We should remember thatt Our Lord blessed those who are insulted because of Him.

"How blessed are you whenever people insult you, persecute you, and say all sorts of evil things against you falsely because of me!
Matthew 5:11

The dissenters set themselves against Christ:
“I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) “The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name, he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15)

Indeed. Now…

Did Church Fathers knew about NFP?
Yes.

Did they allow it?
No.

Why?
Mostly because they thought sex became evil after the Fall (or for similar reasons).

Going away from this, leads to incorrect interpretations of Holy Mother Church History, and by default can not be God’s initiative.

 

[Chrono13]

What arrogance and contempt for the Magisterium.

As the Forum Master, fix, has so pertinently quoted from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the ordinary and universal Magisterium is infallible because a truth “has been constantly maintained and held by Tradition and transmitted by the ordinary, universal Magisterium.”
“In fact, the truth and irreformability of a doctrine depends on the depositum fide, transmitted by Scripture and Tradition, while infallibility refers only to the degree of certitude of an act of magisterial teaching.”

I do not understand why should one obey the idea of “constant teaching” once true nature of this teaching in revealed.

The idea of “sex only for procreation” has lead (one way or the other) to

1. tagging NFP as contraception.
2. forbidding any sexual position where woman is on top (this is why man- on- top position is called “missionary”- it was the only position allowed to Native Americans by Christian missionaries)
3. denying unitive nature of sexuality
4. denying spiritual nature of sexuality (which later came with TOB)
5. zillion other things.

And now, we are to forget about all this stuff and speak about things as “constant”? Sorry, but you can’t choose between obedience to the Pope, and loyalty to basic, factual truth.

Post #234:
This is the assent required by the Australian Bishops in 1976:
“The Episcopal Conference informs the Directors of Catholic Family Planning Centres and Priests connected with this work, that the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church contained in Humanae Vitae that ‘every action…to render procreation impossible’ is ‘intrinsically evil’….binds the conscience of all without ambiguity and excludes the possibility of a probable opinion opposed to this teaching.”

Winnipeg statement anyone? 1998?

And what Catholic layman desire to know for centuries now… under which of these criteria the following rule of pope Alexander VII goes?

“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 (of forbidden books) a constant and complete obedience.”
Index of prohibited books edition

Index included Galileo’s books, already sanctioned as heretical by the same Pope.

If you had, or promoted Galileo’s work- you would be denied sacraments. And that, my dear brethern, beats all labyrinths of Pope saying vs. Ex Cathedra statments.

Post #222
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])

And what Catholic layman desire to know for centuries now… under which of these criteria the following rule of pope Alexander VII goes?

“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 (of forbidden books) a constant and complete obedience.”
Index of prohibited books edition

Index included Galileo’s books, already sanctioned as heretical by the same Pope.

If you had, or promoted Galileo’s work- you would be denied sacraments. And that, my dear brethern, beats all labyrinths of Pope saying vs. Ex Cathedra statments.

The feeling that prejudices, selfism, wants, desires, feelings, wishes should prevail over Magisterial teaching is appallingly irrational and might be excused only for malformed Catholics or for non-Catholics.

Indeed. Now, let’s forget about ourselves, and speak true to each other. Not only can our claims be tested and corrected by vast universe of Internet sources, but truth is the God’s weapon, and He will guard it well.

 

[kalbertone]

When HOLY POOH FAN retracts the error that:
“I can however say definitively that the birth prevention methods that are condemned are not infallibly stated as such”
readers will know, simply, that he has not only admitted the error but is wise and faithful enough to do so and does not intend to mislead readers. It has been, as is clear, infallibly defined.

It is Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) which requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
Canon 750.2:
“Each and every proposition stated definitively by the Magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of the faith or morals, that is, each and every proposition required for the sacred preservation and faithful explanation of the same deposit of faith, must also be firmly embraced and maintained; anyone, therefore, who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church."

The doctrine against contraception cannot be truthfully said to be Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) requiring intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”).

No one can set themselves up against the Magisterium and claim to be a real Catholic.

 

[kalbertone]

Please,that^s as false as they come.Your Catholic by celebrating the Eucharist at mass,the sacraments,confessing the creeds . The Pope is gonna be wrong sometimes.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The magisterial teaching against contraception was probably already infallible under the ordinary and universal Magisterium prior to HV. Germain Grisez makes this assertion in a Zenit interview:

Q: What was the primary significance of “Humanae Vitae”?

Grisez: With “Humanae Vitae,” Paul VI reaffirmed the constant and very firm teaching of the Church excluding contraception. I believe and have argued that teaching had already been proposed infallibly by the ordinary magisterium – that is, by the morally unanimous agreement of the bishops of the whole world in communion with the popes. Together, they had taught for many centuries that using contraceptives always is grave matter.

Their manner of teaching implied that what they taught was a truth to be held definitively. Thus, the teaching on contraception met the conditions for infallible teaching, without a solemn definition, articulated by Vatican II in “Lumen Gentium,” 25.
Zenit

But in any case, it certainly is infallible at this point in time. It is a serious but common error to represent the magisterial condemnation of contraception as if it were only found in HV.

As for the licitness of NFP, Pope Pius XII taught that NFP is moral in Address to Midwives.

And the teaching of the Council of Trent implies that NFP is moral:

“CANON VIII. If anyone says, that the Church errs, in that she declares that, for many causes, a separation may take place between husband and wife, in regard of bed, or in regard of cohabitation, for a determinate or for an indeterminate period; let him be anathema.”

NFP is essentially a separation…in regard of bed… for determinate period of time.

 

[Chrono13]

But in any case, it certainly is infallible at this point in time. It is a serious but common error to represent the magisterial condemnation of contraception as if it were only found in HV.

I agree. However, once the reality of magisterial codemnation is revealed, Humane Vitae loses much of it’s initial background.

As for the licitness of NFP, Pope Pius XII taught that NFP is moral in Address to Midwives.

He is the author of Humanae Vitae, there is nothing surprising here.

And the teaching of the Council of Trent implies that NFP is moral:

“CANON VIII. If anyone says, that the Church errs, in that she declares that, for many causes, a separation may take place between husband and wife, in regard of bed, or in regard of cohabitation, for a determinate or for an indeterminate period; let him be anathema.”

What causes are they talking about ?

NFP is essentially a separation…in regard of bed… for determinate period of time.

Negative. NFP is sexual activity when woman is unable to concieve, considered sinful by Church Father Augustine, and any other following his idea of sexuality.

 

[Chrono13]

He is the author of Humanae Vitae, there is nothing surprising here.

Sorry, I made a mistake here. I thought you were speaking about other Pope.

We can discuss what “serious reasons” are, and how they are practiced today, but even more, what Church Fathers thought of such ethical system.

 

[Abu]

HOLY POOH FAN #264
you still do not understand the difference between declared infallible and what is to the accepted. Augustine gave us LIMBO, died in 431, BXV1 dropped it recently.

Such false “Catholics” never learn because they place their own selfist prejudices above Christ and His Church.

1. Real Catholics not only “accept” the doctrine as infallible they “assent” to it. As to who are real Catholics the Church is quite clear:
   “By this appreciation, of the faith, aroused and sustained by the spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium), and obeying it, receive not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God (cf. 1 Th 2:13), the faith delivered once for all to the saints (cf. Jude 3).” Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 12, (Lumen Gentium), Vatican II, my emphasis]
2. Bringing in his confusion on Limbo merely detracts readers from the errors on the infallible condemnation of contraception. Sister Sarah Butler, a member of the Commission, has faithfully commented on this document at:
   ewtn.com/library/Theology/znotionlimbo.htm
   **The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized. Benedict XVI approved it for publication.
   Notion of Limbo Isn’t Closed, Expert Says
   Adds It’s a Theological Opinion That Can Be Defended **

Trying to raise theologians to the level of contradicting the Magisterium is the stock in trade of Chrono13 who, in his prejudices, can only try to deny the authority and infallibility conferred by the Son of God. He has set himself up against such giants as Msgr Cormac P Burke, the former Head of the Holy Roman Rota, the Church’s highest court, who shows how erroneous are the assumptions of this perennially confused one who has nothing to offer. Misrepresentation of St Augustine and other Fathers is the petard on which he is hoist.

Kalbertone rejects Christ conferring infallibility in faith and morals on His Supreme Vicars, when definitively teaching the whole Church.
As more bishops follow Timothy Cardinal Dolan in helping the confused to real faith so will the growing trend against abortion and contraception continue to progress.

 

[Chrono13]

Such false “Catholics” never learn because they place their own selfist prejudices above Christ and His Church.

Attempting to deny the value of one’s arguments by forming them as if they are against Jesus or Mother Church is futile. I believe my points have been sharp, and supported by doctrinal and historical data you were not able to refute. I could easily proclaim you deny Apostolic Tradition when claiming NFP is in accordance with Natural Law (as seen by Fathers of the Church) but I find such rhetoric unproductive. You should too.

1. Real Catholics not only “accept” the doctrine as infallible they “assent” to it. As to who are real Catholics the Church is quite clear:
   “By this appreciation, of the faith, aroused and sustained by the spirit of truth, the **People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium), **and obeying it, receive not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God (cf. 1 Th 2:13), the faith delivered once for all to the saints (cf. Jude 3).” Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 12, (Lumen Gentium), Vatican II, my emphasis]

This text does not explain why Catholic layman were taught NFP is bad, or that their marital embrace is of sinful nature. Catholic** can not obey** avoiding the truth, since he** can not choose ** between Catholic “historical tradition” and religious hierarchy. You can’t ask faithful to pretend as if using female fertility cycle was unknown to Church Fathers, or not known up to 19th Century.

1. Bringing in his confusion on Limbo merely detracts readers from the errors on the infallible condemnation of contraception. Sister Sarah Butler, a member of the Commission, has faithfully commented on this document at:
   ewtn.com/library/Theology/znotionlimbo.htm
   **The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized. Benedict XVI approved it for publication.
   Notion of Limbo Isn’t Closed, Expert Says
   Adds It’s a Theological Opinion That Can Be Defended **

You are completely avoiding the point the other user made. He simply underlined that in the past, it was considered sinful/heretical to bury unbaptized infants with those which recieved the sacrament. Even the Mass was not allowed. This caused tremendous grief to the parents, and today things changed.

There are many similar examples. Pius X denied women to sing in choirs (that was in 1908. Some people of that time are still alive. )Vatican II changed that, without much fuss or explanation to women why this was so.

Trying to raise theologians to the level of contradicting the Magisterium is the stock in trade of Chrono13 who, in his prejudices, can only try to deny the authority and infallibility conferred by the Son of God.

Do not trivialize this discussion. I have never supported such foul idea, neither gave a slightest inclination that I do.

Son of God does not counter the truth, for He is Truth Incarnate. Let us discover the Truth, and embrace it for Our Lord.

He has set himself up against such giants as Msgr Cormac P Burke, the former Head of the Holy Roman Rota, the Church’s highest court, who shows how erroneous are the assumptions of this perennially confused one who has nothing to
offer.

I would counter much greater authority then him, when it comes to defending the truths about my faith.

If you are talking about this text:
churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/augustine.htm
Yes, I had my remarks. Burke extends the triple blessings of the *marriage * to sexual act of spouses. This was never done by Augustine, who claimed sex is “burden” and “weakness” of couple.

Misrepresentation of St Augustine and other Fathers is the petard on which he is hoist.

People are more then welcome to read Augustine and other Church Fathers to correct me. It is highly doubtful that they will share your view after that, especially regarding your claims that NFP was unknow before modern era.

 

[choose_to_love]

@chrono: would you please just admit that no Church Father ever addressed NBR/NFP in any other context than Augustine and the Manicheans? I do not recall ever seeing anything about birth regulation in any of the Church Father citations in your posts. I submit that it is solely your interpretation of various Church Fathers and what they have said about the purpose and nature of sex within marriage that you cite as support of your contention.

Second, I am not following at all your argument, which you seem to think is self-evident, as to why a “duty” on the part of the widow existed to report the shirking brother, and why this somehow invalidates the point raised by Harrison et al. that not having relations with the widow is only punishable by humiliation, whereas contracepting those relations merits death. Could you spell it out?

 

[Abu]

Abu, post #272:
“By this appreciation, of the faith, aroused and sustained by the spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium), and obeying it, receive not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God (cf. 1 Th 2:13), the faith delivered once for all to the saints (cf. Jude 3).” Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 12, (Lumen Gentium), Vatican II, my emphasis]

Chrono13 #273
This text does not explain why Catholic layman were taught NFP is bad, or that their marital embrace is of sinful nature.

1. Chrono13’s error here, ad nauseam, is in assuming that the Magisterium has taught against NBR as sinful. He therefore continually denigrates the Magisterium and so denigrates the doctrine against contraception.

Abu, post #272
Trying to raise theologians to the level of contradicting the Magisterium is the stock in trade of Chrono13 who, in his prejudices, can only try to deny the authority and infallibility conferred by the Son of God.

Do not trivialize this discussion. I have never supported such foul idea, neither gave a slightest inclination that I do.

He is even unable to see what has been crystal clear in all of his ranting against the doctrine condemning contraception.

1. The other error, ad nauseam, by some here in trying to deny the infallibility of the doctrine against contraception is evidence of the totally misplaced assumption by them that any doctrine which is not infallible need not be taken seriously and can be dissented from.

Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium *25:
“This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme Magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.”

Thus the third paragraph of Ad Tuendam Fidem, Bl John Paul II, 1998, states: “Moreover I adhere with submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.”(7) This paragraph has its corresponding legislative expression in canon 752 of the Code of Canon Law(8)

“Can. 752: Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.”

There has never been, and is no, “licit dissent” as Pope John Paul II has confirmed: “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].

 

[Chrono13]

@chrono: would you please just admit that no Church Father ever addressed NBR/NFP in any other context than Augustine and the Manicheans? I do not recall ever seeing anything about birth regulation in any of the Church Father citations in your posts. I submit that it is solely your interpretation of various Church Fathers and what they have said about the purpose and nature of sex within marriage that you cite as support of your contention.

I never said other Church Fathers addressed NFP/NBR, but noted they shared the same values as Augustine. Values which actually made St. Augustine reject NFP/NBR.

The idea was that sex is only for procreation, and can only be practiced morally with *intent *of procreation. Being open to life meant nothing to these great theologians, since you could have such intercourse with a prostitute, if you wanted. The “natural” intercourse was the one with legitimate wife, with as little sexual excitement as possible, but with rational decision to beget a child.

“We Christians marry only to produce children”
Justin Martyr

“Do you imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children? He who is too ardent a lover of his own wife is an adulterer.”
Jerome

“If a man marries in order to have children, he ought not to have a sexual desire for his wife. He ought to produce children by a reverent, disciplined act of will.”
St. Clement of Alexandria

“In Eden, it would have been possible to beget offspring without foul lust. The sexual organs would have been stimulated into necessary activity by will-power alone, just as the will controls other organs. …So, the two sexes could have come together for impregnation and conception by an act of will, rather than by lustful cravings” .
St. Augustine

Every Church Father sharing this ethical system also shares ban of NFP since, even according to Humanae Vitae, couple does not *desire *begetting.

Second, I am not following at all your argument, which you seem to think is self-evident, as to why a “duty” on the part of the widow existed to report the shirking brother, and why this somehow invalidates the point raised by Harrison et al. that not having relations with the widow is only punishable by humiliation, whereas contracepting those relations merits death. Could you spell it out?

Harrison finds argument in Deuteronomy,
However, if a man does not want to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, “My husband’s brother refuses to carry on his brother’s name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me.”
Deuteronomy 25:7

If contraception is sinful by itself, this alone would suffice for Tamar to do something about Onan. Yet, even after his death, she does not mention it to Judas and he thinks it’s her fault.

But back to original point- if Onan had to produce a chid with Tamar, his coitus interruptus would certainly rise a few questionmarks over her head. She certainly would not just tolerate it (and that’s what Fr. Harrison suggests).

 

[Chrono13]

1. Chrono13’s error here, ad nauseam, is in assuming that the Magisterium has taught against NBR as sinful. He therefore continually denigrates the Magisterium and so denigrates the doctrine against contraception.

I feel no nausea. I guess readers are fine too, judging from daily reads of this topic.

I gave solid proofs for my points, and if they stand, then I do not denigrate the Magisterium. How can truth fight the truth?

He is even unable to see what has been crystal clear in all of his ranting against the doctrine condemning contraception.

“He” finds your rhetoric amusing from secular point of view, and unpius from religious one. But if you have to speak to me in that way, as if I am an item in the store, please do.
However your attempt to label me as some promoter of “theologist magisterium” makes me sad.

1. The other error, ad nauseam, by some here in trying to deny the infallibility of the doctrine against contraception is evidence of the totally misplaced assumption by them that any doctrine which is not infallible need not be taken seriously and can be dissented from.

I really don’t understand what you meant here. If you suggest that Catholic must obey doctrine even if it is not of infallible status, one must ask which doctrine you are referring to? So far you were doing your best to prove that contraception ban is infallible.

Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium *25:
“This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme Magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.”

You can demand whatever you want from layman, apart from his history in the Catholic Church. You simply can’t ask him to believe his ancestors could disagree with St. Augustine and belief sex is only for procreation.

And even if you can tell him to forget his own history, you would still have to provide answer to enemies of the Church- heretics, schismatics, fundamentalists. They do not have obligation to submit mind and will, and will demand simple answers on simple questions.

Some of them would say they have us right where they want us.

 

[kalbertone]

Abu, post #272:
“By this appreciation, of the faith, aroused and sustained by the spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium), and obeying it, receive not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God (cf. 1 Th 2:13), the faith delivered once for all to the saints (cf. Jude 3).” Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 12, (Lumen Gentium), Vatican II, my emphasis]

1. Chrono13’s error here, ad nauseam, is in assuming that the Magisterium has taught against NBR as sinful. He therefore continually denigrates the Magisterium and so denigrates the doctrine against contraception.

Abu, post #272
Trying to raise theologians to the level of contradicting the Magisterium is the stock in trade of Chrono13 who, in his prejudices, can only try to deny the authority and infallibility conferred by the Son of God.
He is even unable to see what has been crystal clear in all of his ranting against the doctrine condemning contraception.

1. The other error, ad nauseam, by some here in trying to deny the infallibility of the doctrine against contraception is evidence of the totally misplaced assumption by them that any doctrine which is not infallible need not be taken seriously and can be dissented from.

Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium *25:
“This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme Magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.”

Thus the third paragraph of Ad Tuendam Fidem, Bl John Paul II, 1998, states: “Moreover I adhere with submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.”(7) This paragraph has its corresponding legislative expression in canon 752 of the Code of Canon Law(8)

“Can. 752: Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.”

There has never been, and is no, “licit dissent” as Pope John Paul II has confirmed: “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 never said other Church Fathers addressed NFP/NBR, but noted they shared the same values as Augustine. Values which actually made St. Augustine reject NFP/NBR.

The idea was that sex is only for procreation, and can only be practiced morally with *intent *of procreation. Being open to life meant nothing to these great theologians, since you could have such intercourse with a prostitute, if you wanted. The “natural” intercourse was the one with legitimate wife, with as little sexual excitement as possible, but with rational decision to beget a child.

“We Christians marry only to produce children”
Justin Martyr

“Do you imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children? He who is too ardent a lover of his own wife is an adulterer.”
Jerome

“If a man marries in order to have children, he ought not to have a sexual desire for his wife. He ought to produce children by a reverent, disciplined act of will.”
St. Clement of Alexandria

“In Eden, it would have been possible to beget offspring without foul lust. The sexual organs would have been stimulated into necessary activity by will-power alone, just as the will controls other organs. …So, the two sexes could have come together for impregnation and conception by an act of will, rather than by lustful cravings” .
St. Augustine

Every Church Father sharing this ethical system also shares ban of NFP since, even according to Humanae Vitae, couple does not *desire *begetting.

Harrison finds argument in Deuteronomy,
However, if a man does not want to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, “My husband’s brother refuses to carry on his brother’s name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me.”
Deuteronomy 25:7

If contraception is sinful by itself, this alone would suffice for Tamar to do something about Onan. Yet, even after his death, she does not mention it to Judas and he thinks it’s her fault.

But back to original point- if Onan had to produce a chid with Tamar, his coitus interruptus would certainly rise a few questionmarks over her head. She certainly would not just tolerate it (and that’s what Fr. Harrison suggests).

 

[kalbertone]

Vatican II was not allowed to debate contraception or celibacy(the pope took it out of the council^s hands fearing change). There is a excellent book on contraception by Noonan. Back in the 1800s France it states,France had a population explosion.The Bishops feared that withdrawal or coitus interruptus was being used to regulate/limit births.They went to the vatican to recieve counsel.What did Pope Leo XIII say ? “Don^t interfere with the consciences of couples”. This has been documented & witnessed.It was never published in a encyclicle(which were non existant for the first 1,600 years of church history) but tht counsel was given. A lot of people in this forum are 1)ignorant of History 2)Don^t realize that Scripture or most Councils of the Church don^t mention this issue. You can quote Vatican II but it was not allowed to openly debate it.When a Bishop stood up in favour or re consideration to revise this teaching,he recieved a major round of applause at the assembly.This set off alarm bells in the Vatican(which alone IS NOT THE CHURCH) & Paul VI took it out of the council^s hands stating it has been sent to a comission looking into it