Why Do Most Catholics Ignore Humane Vitae?

[HOLY_POOH_FAN]

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].

=============
Our beloved Son Abu is indeed a faithful member of Our Body the Church of JC on Earth. He is however fallible, and subject to a reformation of opinion on the precise definition of infallible. The Holy Father who said there is no Limbo was speaking for the FAITH, there is no Limbo, never was. We have however designated one of Our mansions as LIMBAUGH in honour of Rush and those who see him as the Messiah for un-thinking Rightists on Earth. Given this day of whatever calendar you follow signed The Holy Trinity, witnessed by Peter, Our Eternal Gatekeeper. BTW We cannot wait for Mr Obama, Mr Biden and Ms Pelosi to get here!!! Hugs and CHILL Mr Abu. AMEN

 

[choose_to_love]

@chrono, please! In post #273, you state: “Catholic layman were taught that NFP was badl”, yet in your answer to me, you admit that no Church Father ever addressed NFP/NBR in context. How can both of those statements be true? All I am asking is that you set forth the argument you make in post #276 as your opinion that the early Church Fathers would not have apporved of NFP, because that is all you actually have. You have consistently characterized your position as that of the Church, and it is not. Your opinion may be well supported, and you may find it convincing, but that does change that it is only your opinion. For example, your sentence in post #276 which begins "Every Church Father . . . " is your opinion, because no Church Father actually addressed the question of NBR’s licitness. If they did not address it, the best you can have is an educated opinion/guess about what conclusion would have been reached.

It seems to me that at least to some degree the point is that lust, i.e., using the other person as an object, is what the Fathers were condemning.

@kalbertone: can you provide some references for your claims so we are all on the same page? As an aside, why do you post whole-post quotations? Is your commentary in there and I am missing it?

 

[Chrono13]

@chrono, please! In post #273, you state: “Catholic layman were taught that NFP was badl”, yet in your answer to me, you admit that no Church Father ever addressed NFP/NBR in context. How can both of those statements be true?

Church Father Augustine forbid NFP/NBR since procreation is “the only excuse for intercourse”. This reveals his background- belief sex is only for procreation.

This belief was shared by most, if not all, Church Fathers. Logically, each Father who thinks intercourse is moral only if pair wishes to beget a child, is opponent of NFP.

For example, when Clement writes:
“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.”
By default, this makes NFP unacceptable, since such act is preformed without will to produce children. And without this will, there is no concrete reason to have intercourse.

So, to answer this in more simple way… The Church taught sex is only for procreation. And since NFP is usually used to avoid procreation, there was no way to make it moral, or even neutral.

You have consistently characterized your position as that of the Church, and it is not. Your opinion may be well supported, and you may find it convincing, but that does change that it is only your opinion.

I believe my position is pointing at fact outside of personal opinions. If clergy forbid layman to have sex for specific reasons, this is fact of Church history, and it would be so even if I would disagree.

For example, your sentence in post #276 which begins "Every Church Father . . . " is your opinion, because no Church Father actually addressed the question of NBR’s licitness. If they did not address it, the best you can have is an educated opinion/guess about what conclusion would have been reached.

Let’s try it like this. How would you explain NFP to a person who thinks sex is only moral when done to beget a child?

And that person, let’s say it’s St. Augustine, already said NFP is evil precisely for reasons above.

It seems to me that at least to some degree the point is that lust, i.e., using the other person as an object, is what the Fathers were condemning.

You are half right. It is true that Fathers were condemning lust. But lust was not observed in the way how you treat your woman, but how you treat procreation in intercourse.

To them, lust was anything involved in sex above desire to beget a child.

 

[Donna_P]

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.

God bless you and your ex-wife. These struggles are horrible. Should you get an annulment and ever re-marry, I hope you revisit Natural Family Planning. Check out the Couple to Couple league. NFP is easy and more effective than any artificial birth control.

 

[Abu]

kalbertone #280
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

That ignorance is well displayed above, consistent with the other confused posters here in opposing Christ through His Church.

Readers know by now the ignorance, confusion and dissent among the cafeteria Catholics here, and among the cloud of the unknowing.

The first time Rome spoke on NBR was as long ago as 1853, Pope Pius IX, when the Sacred Penitentiary answered a dubium (a formal request for an official clarification) submitted by the Bishop of Amiens, France. He asked, “Should those spouses be reprehended who make use of marriage only on those days when (in the opinion of some doctors) conception is impossible?”
The reply was, “After mature examination, we have decided that such spouses should not be disturbed [or disquieted], provided they do nothing that impedes generation.” (Non esse inquietandos illos de quibus in precibus, dummodo nihil agant per quod conceptio impediatur”).
cmri.org/03-nfp.htm

'The next time the issue was raised was in 1880, when the Sacred Penitentiary on June 16 of that year issued a more general response (i.e., not directed just to an individual bishop). This time the Vatican goes further: not only does it instruct confessors not to “disquiet” or “disturb” married couples who are already practising periodic continence; it even authorizes the confessor to take the initiative in positively suggesting that method, with due caution, to couples who may not yet be aware of it, and who, in his prudent judgment, are otherwise likely to keep on practising the “detestable crime” of onanism. One could not ask for a more obvious and explicit proof that already, more than eighty years before Vatican II, the Holy See saw a great moral difference between NFP (as we now call it) and contraceptive methods (which Catholic moralists then referred to globally as ‘onanism’ of different types).

‘Now, this was the doctrine and pastoral practice that all priests well-formed in moral theology learned in seminary from the mid-19th-century onward. So before Pius XI was elected, Blessed Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X and Benedict XV all clearly approved of this status quo established by their own Sacred Penitentiary, and never showed the slightest inclination to reverse its decisions of 1853 and 1880.’
rtforum.org/lt/lt103.html

Likewise the other confused and misled posters who trash the Church’s teaching understand nothing of the:

1. History of contraception from the time of Onan whom God killed
2. Development of the knowledge of the cycles of fertility and NBR
3. Protestant acquiescence with the evil of contraception and the infallible doctrine against contraception by Pius XI in *Casti Connubii *in 1930
4. Fact of the demographic winter due to the calamity of contraception and the abortion holocaust throughout the world

Real Catholics understand that even non-infallible doctrine is the object of obedience of intellect and will, and that infallible doctrine 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."

Thus do those who sneer and jeer oppose Christ and His Church.
[/quote]

 

[kalbertone]

kalbertone:
If you mention the Church Fathers on issues of contraception,you also have to mention there views on sexuality in general.They were influenced not by scripture(all that God created is Good—New Testament, May your wife^s breasts give you great joy—Proverbs, The Song Of Songs as the catechism notes is a celebtation of Married love sexually) but by Greek Paganism. Hence the act of intercourse was hailed as vile(even if children were sought),repulsive(a church father Origen cut off his sexual member because of disdain for sexuality),a necessary evil,Jerome stated that it could be tolerated(sex for children) so that new virgins could be produced. If people said that now they would of been sent to phsychiatrists & probably put on anti depressant drugs. They ignorantly thought that because animals indulge in intercourse for reproduction purposes only so should humans. But animals don^t marry,have their union deemed a Sacrament,have interpersonal relationship(It^s not good for man to be alone—declares God). Most of the time when humans have sex procreation doesn^t take place because the seed deposited doesn^t meet a egg because the woman is fertile for such a short time.Once again fidelity of spouses(yes biblical),children(yes absolutely),Pleasure(yes a great gift).Love(yes a gift) but there may be good reason to sppace a birth or limit births. In the end as the Catechism states & as tradition notes its comes down to the PRIMACY & Superiority of CONSCIENCE

 

[HOLY_POOH_FAN]

I am a devout believer. Perod. After reading this whole conversation today I have a solution for the Malthusians of the world and the scholars on here who seem to forget that it was in the mid-19th century that the medical profession discovered that a mother was not just the receptacle of the sperm but produced the egg to join the Winner of the Sprem Pool swim
. So who in the name of a rational-faith community as we are could argue a lot from the Fathers, especially St Augustine whose own Mamicheanism and sex-addiction before his conversion coloured his views on genitality, apart from interpreting the Fall as going from serene hat coats and tail gentlemanly intercourse to flaling naked irrational sexual wildness which was against his Platonic understanding of the human mind/soul/nous.
MY SOLUTION require every couple contemplating questionable genitality to read through all this High Rise theological jargon. They would lose interest and pray a rosary or watch Late Night TV or just fall asleep in the middle of it all.

 

[Abu]

kalbertone #286
In the end as the Catechism states & as tradition notes its comes down to the PRIMACY & Superiority of CONSCIENCE

There is no “superiority” of conscience but there is a false conscience. Since conscience is a judgment of reason (CCC 1778), it can be erroneous (CCC Section IV on “Moral Conscience”). This travesty of the truth aptly sums up the self-styled “Catholic” who knows very little of the Church’s teaching and takes less trouble to find out. The freedom of conscience versus truth is a major error for the cafeteria Catholic.

**CCC1783: **
“The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.” **
CCC1792:
Identifies “errors of judgment” precisely: “…assertion of a mistaken autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and Her teaching…can be a the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.”

Vatican II:**
“In the formation of their consciences, the Christian faithful ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church. For the Catholic Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of the truth. It is her duty to give utterance to, and authoritatively to teach, that truth which is Christ Himself, and also to declare and confirm by Her authority those principles of the moral order which have their origins in human nature itself. Furthermore, let Christians walk in wisdom in the face of those outside, ‘in the Holy Spirit, in unaffected love, in the word of truth’ (2 Cor. 6:6-7), and let them be about their task of spreading the light of life with all confidence(36) and apostolic courage, even to the shedding of their blood.” (Vatican II, Dignitatis Humanae, 14).

Bl John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor #64: “The Church puts herself always and only at the service of conscience, helping it to avoid being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine proposed by human deceit (cf. Eph 4:14), and helping it not to swerve from the truth about the good of man, but rather, especially in more difficult questions, to attain the truth with certainty and to abide in it.”

It’s not rocket science – it’s simple – as Bl John Paul II warned in *Veritatis Splendor *#64, ….“ ‘freedom of conscience’ is never freedom ‘from’ the truth but always and only freedom ‘in’ the truth because the Magisterium does not bring to the Christian conscience truths which are extraneous to it; rather it brings to light the truths which it ought already to possess, developing them from the primordial act of faith…helping (conscience), especially in more difficult questions, to attain the truth with certainty and to abide in it.”

Josef Cardinal Ratzinger: “For Newman…the centrality of ….conscience is linked to the prior centrality of truth and can only be understood from this vantage point. I would say that a man of conscience is one who never acquires tolerance, well-being, success, public standing, and approval on the part of prevailing opinion at the expense of truth.” (The Priest, Autumn, 1993).

Theologian Pablo Blanco of the University of Navarre in Spain has commented: Benedict XVI has underscored “the great contribution of Bl John Henry Cardinal Newman: the primacy he gives to conscience. For him, there was no contradiction between obedience to doctrine and following one’s conscience. Perhaps that is why he was so controversial in his time,” Blanco explained.

 

[fix]

I am a devout believer. Perod. After reading this whole conversation today I have a solution for the Malthusians of the world and the scholars on here who seem to forget that it was in the mid-19th century that the medical profession discovered that a mother was not just the receptacle of the sperm but produced the egg to join the Winner of the Sprem Pool swim
. So who in the name of a rational-faith community as we are could argue a lot from the Fathers, especially St Augustine whose own Mamicheanism and sex-addiction before his conversion coloured his views on genitality, apart from interpreting the Fall as going from serene hat coats and tail gentlemanly intercourse to flaling naked irrational sexual wildness which was against his Platonic understanding of the human mind/soul/nous.
MY SOLUTION require every couple contemplating questionable genitality to read through all this High Rise theological jargon. They would lose interest and pray a rosary or watch Late Night TV or just fall asleep in the middle of it all.

Truth is a person not a dusty old book that you claim it to be. Following Him is not simply an intellectual argument but those arguments are needed to counter the relativism that is so common.

 

[Abu]

HOLY POOH FAN,
Much tripe has been attributed to St Augustine here by the cloud of unknowing, and some never learn because they do not seek the sources that know.

Some utterly fail to consider just how completely different the Manichean worldview is from ours today and how Augustine’s goal of combating that affected his choice of words.

For the Manis, creating children was evil. That is the central point you MUST keep in mind when reading Augustine’s writings addressing them. He is speaking to THEM and pointing out to them that if creating children is evil, then there can be no goodness in sexual contact. This is still true today, as evidenced by a couple’s eligibility for annulment if they can prove that one or both NEVER intended to have children.

Further:
churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/augustine.htm
SAINT AUGUSTINE AND CONJUGAL SEXUALITY
By Monsignor Cormac Burke a priest of the Opus Del Prelature, was a judge of the Roman Rota (the High Court of the Church), and taught at the Roman University of the Holy Cross.

“Augustine makes it clear that what he regards as the disorder of concupiscence is not synonymous with sexual pleasure either.

“This point needs to be specially stressed since, given the vigor with which Augustine criticizes the yielding to concupiscence, a superficial reader might easily be led to conclude that he is criticizing the actual seeking of pleasure itself in marital intercourse. A proper reading shows that this is not so.

“Already in De bono coniugali, in a passage where he compares nourishment and generation, he had insisted that sexual pleasure, sought temperately and rationally, is not and cannot be termed concupiscence. Elsewhere he contrasts the lawful pleasure of the conjugal embrace with the unlawful pleasure of fornication.”

Anyone acquainted with St Thomas Aquinas and the Fathers would know that “against nature” = against the natural moral law. The ancient Egyptians and the pagan Cicero, before Christ, acknowledged the natural moral law: Cicero (died 43 B.C.) wrote in De Republica, 3.22: “True law is right reason in agreement with nature. It is of universal application, unchanging, everlasting. We cannot be freed from it by Senate or people. This law is not one thing at Rome and another at Athens, but is eternal and immutable, valid for all nations and for all times. God is the Author of it, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient to it is abandoning his true self and denying his own nature.”

 

[Chrono13]

Josef Cardinal Ratzinger: “For Newman…the centrality of ….conscience is linked to the prior centrality of truth and can only be understood from this vantage point. I would say that a man of conscience is one who never acquires tolerance, well-being, success, public standing, and approval on the part of prevailing opinion at the expense of truth.” (The Priest, Autumn, 1993).

Precisely. Now how are we to obey these wise words when similar sources are suggesting Church did not teach that sex is only for procreation, and that laymen were to use NFP according to their conscience and principles of natural law?

 

[Chrono13]

Truth is a person not a dusty old book that you claim it to be. Following Him is not simply an intellectual argument but those arguments are needed to counter the relativism that is so common.

This might sound provocative, but there is a certain dose of that relativism in the clerical approach to the subject as well.

Telling people that Church Fathers did not think what they clearly have, approaching the history in very selective manner, denial of sacrifices layman had to endure in order to upheld the teaching, insisting that interpretation of nature did not change… all this is actually relativizing of factual data. And Jesus doesn’t need relativizing in order to reign over humanity and history.

 

[Chrono13]

HOLY POOH FAN,
Much tripe has been attributed to St Augustine here by the cloud of unknowing, and some never learn because they do not seek the sources that know.

Let us sit, and learn then.

For the Manis, creating children was evil. That is the central point you MUST keep in mind when reading Augustine’s writings addressing them. He is speaking to THEM and pointing out to them that if creating children is evil, then there can be no goodness in sexual contact. This is still true today, as evidenced by a couple’s eligibility for annulment if they can prove that one or both NEVER intended to have children.

No Mani forced Augustine to say sex should be practiced only for procreation, neither that intercourse without that intent is venial sin of married couple.

Further:
churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/augustine.htm
SAINT AUGUSTINE AND CONJUGAL SEXUALITY
By Monsignor Cormac Burke a priest of the Opus Del Prelature, was a judge of the Roman Rota (the High Court of the Church), and taught at the Roman University of the Holy Cross.

As I already stated, Burke spreads “the goods of marriage” to “marital intercourse”- something Augustine NEVER did. And you NEVER rebuked.

“This point needs to be specially stressed since, given the vigor with which Augustine criticizes the yielding to concupiscence, a superficial reader might easily be led to conclude that he is criticizing the actual seeking of pleasure itself in marital intercourse. A proper reading shows that this is not so.

Of course not.

“Already in De bono coniugali, in a passage where he compares nourishment and generation, he had insisted that sexual pleasure, sought temperately and rationally, is not and cannot be termed concupiscence

But what is “temperately” and “rationally” to Augustine?
The thing is- since the only rational use of sex is begetting children, only rational desire for pleasure is the one attributed with that process.

This means, you can enjoy sex as long as you intend to beget.

Elsewhere he contrasts the lawful pleasure of the conjugal embrace with the unlawful pleasure of fornication.”

Indeed- he said “enjoy marital embrace- even if you are a prostitute”. But does he really go against his “procreation only” that way?

Anyone acquainted with St Thomas Aquinas and the Fathers would know that “against nature” = against the natural moral law. The ancient Egyptians and the pagan Cicero, before Christ, acknowledged the natural moral law: Cicero (died 43 B.C.) wrote in De Republica, 3.22: “True law is right reason in agreement with nature. It is of universal application, unchanging, everlasting. We cannot be freed from it by Senate or people. This law is not one thing at Rome and another at Athens, but is eternal and immutable, valid for all nations and for all times. God is the Author of it, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient to it is abandoning his true self and denying his own nature.”

This was already covered. The nature and it’s interpretation changed during history, and different cultures concluded different approaches to various topics. This does not mean they are Lawless, since the Law is inwritten in heart.

However, in topic of contraception- certain individuals believed sex is only for procreation, thus the only natural use of it is with intent of concieving. This made NFP contraception, and this conclusion differs from the one of Humanae Vitae.

 

[Abu]

Originally Posted by Abu (#288)
*Josef Cardinal Ratzinger: “For Newman…the centrality of ….conscience is linked to the prior centrality of truth and can only be understood from this vantage point. I would say that a man of conscience is one who never acquires tolerance, well-being, success, public standing, and approval on the part of prevailing opinion at the expense of truth.” *(The Priest, Autumn, 1993).

Chrono13 #291
Precisely. Now how are we to obey these wise words when similar sources are suggesting Church did not teach that sex is only for procreation, and that laymen were to use NFP according to their conscience and principles of natural law?

Precisely because Josef Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Bandit XVI) knows that “the Catholic Church” has never taught that “sex is only for procreation.”
Only dissenters, the malformed and mal-informed, could concoct such a travesty of truth.

Further She has taught always against contraception and as the principles of NBR became known counseled it’s wise use for just and serious reasons.

 

[Abu]

Chrono13 #293
As I already stated, Burke spreads “the goods of marriage” to “marital intercourse”- something Augustine NEVER did. And you NEVER rebuked.

Some people never learn. Not only is St Augustine pilloried, but the infallible doctrine against contraception is demeaned and dissented from by this poster, thus ridiculing the Popes and Christ Himself.

Christ’s Church and His infallible teaching through His Popes are cast aside as worthless, for a quagmire of dissent.
He has been shown the reality repeatedly, as below, but prefers his own selfist interpretations to the reality of truth.

On Catholic Answers: #899, 29/6/11, 4:21 pm Abu Re: NFP and contraception
Facing Reality:
On St Augustine. sex and marriage from Msgr Cormac P Burkechurchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/augustine.htm

In his debate with Julian, he makes it clear that it is not pleasure which he criticizes: “because pleasure can also be honourable”; [32] and he is content that Julian admits that pleasure can be both licit and illicit. [33]

“…summing up what we have so far established. The essential goods of marriage—offspring, fidelity, the unbreakable bond—are vigorously defended and praised by Augustine, who presents them as the laudable blessings of the married state. He also proposes the goodness of sexual differences, and of the intimacy and pleasure of marital intercourse: all of these given by God. The disorder that he draws attention to resides in our sense appetite (which, once again, is good in itself), [35] and that disorder makes itself particularly felt in the area of sexuality. **His reserve, then, is not about the goodness of marriage, but about the force and effect of libido or the concupiscentia carnis which, he says, "is not a good that proceeds from the essence of marriage, but an evil which is the accident of original sin. [36]

 

[HOLY_POOH_FAN]

HOLY POOH FAN,
Much tripe has been attributed to St Augustine here by the cloud of unknowing, and some never learn because they do not seek the sources that know.

Some utterly fail to consider just how completely different the Manichean worldview is from ours today and how Augustine’s goal of combating that affected his choice of words.

For the Manis, creating children was evil. That is the central point you MUST keep in mind when reading Augustine’s writings addressing them. He is speaking to THEM and pointing out to them that if creating children is evil, then there can be no goodness in sexual contact. This is still true today, as evidenced by a couple’s eligibility for annulment if they can prove that one or both NEVER intended to have children.

Further:
churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/augustine.htm
SAINT AUGUSTINE AND CONJUGAL SEXUALITY
By Monsignor Cormac Burke a priest of the Opus Del Prelature, was a judge of the Roman Rota (the High Court of the Church), and taught at the Roman University of the Holy Cross.

“Augustine makes it clear that what he regards as the disorder of concupiscence is not synonymous with sexual pleasure either.

“This point needs to be specially stressed since, given the vigor with which Augustine criticizes the yielding to concupiscence, a superficial reader might easily be led to conclude that he is criticizing the actual seeking of pleasure itself in marital intercourse. A proper reading shows that this is not so.

“Already in De bono coniugali, in a passage where he compares nourishment and generation, he had insisted that sexual pleasure, sought temperately and rationally, is not and cannot be termed concupiscence. Elsewhere he contrasts the lawful pleasure of the conjugal embrace with the unlawful pleasure of fornication.”

Anyone acquainted with St Thomas Aquinas and the Fathers would know that “against nature” = against the natural moral law. The ancient Egyptians and the pagan Cicero, before Christ, acknowledged the natural moral law: Cicero (died 43 B.C.) wrote in De Republica, 3.22: “True law is right reason in agreement with nature. It is of universal application, unchanging, everlasting. We cannot be freed from it by Senate or people. This law is not one thing at Rome and another at Athens, but is eternal and immutable, valid for all nations and for all times. God is the Author of it, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient to it is abandoning his true self and denying his own nature.”

Thank you so much for citing an Opus Dei former official at HH Supreme Court. And the lecture on the Natural Law’s existence which St Paul taught in Romans. The issue was Augustine’s crazy mixed up leftover negativity about human nature and the nexus between the Fall and intercourse as he struggled, 1600 years ago with integrating that with his new Catholic Christian Faith. It is disingenuous to pretend he was addressing Manicehans to give us a negative view of fallen human nature which Aquinas had to correct but the reformers passed on and brought it across the Aatlantic to poison the culture of the Colonies and after that… That same crud was adopted by Jansenists who formed Irish clergy during the English refrmation and came to Ireland after the revolution and set up ordinary schools. The Biblical Commission issued several nutty decisions about how to interpret Genesis and the Bible in general until Pius X11 and later scholarship, freed from the overkill of Modernism were then able to develop. Abu, you are sincere but alllow no room for growth in the Church’s coming to understand what Jesus taught. Still working on it in moral theology when the understanding of being made in God’s image is understood:, castrati for the Church choirs, “error has no rights” ao killl r deny worship rights to heretics and infidels, and so on.

 

[Dominique1234]

Thank you for your reply here. It’s nice to have an experiential reply from an NFP user without the sanctimonious tone I’ve received in other replies. I’ll be sure to research what you’ve said further!

I still think it’s a good question to ask: why do so many Catholics ignore the Church’s teachings?

Ignorance, selfishness, and lack of Love for our Creator, hence lack of love for others. They’re too involved in themselves to worry about what the Church (God) thinks. It’s not that complicated.

 

[Dominique1234]

Originally Posted by Abu (#288)
*Josef Cardinal Ratzinger: “For Newman…the centrality of ….conscience is linked to the prior centrality of truth and can only be understood from this vantage point. I would say that a man of conscience is one who never acquires tolerance, well-being, success, public standing, and approval on the part of prevailing opinion at the expense of truth.” *(The Priest, Autumn, 1993).
Precisely because Josef Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Bandit XVI) knows that “the Catholic Church” has never taught that “sex is only for procreation.”
Only dissenters, the malformed and mal-informed, could concoct such a travesty of truth.

Further She has taught always against contraception and as the principles of NBR became known counseled it’s wise use for just and serious reasons.

Please refrain from disrespecting the lineage of Christ in our Beloved Catholic Church.

 

[Dominique1234]

Thank you so much for citing an Opus Dei former official at HH Supreme Court. And the lecture on the Natural Law’s existence which St Paul taught in Romans. The issue was Augustine’s crazy mixed up leftover negativity about human nature and the nexus between the Fall and intercourse as he struggled, 1600 years ago with integrating that with his new Catholic Christian Faith. It is disingenuous to pretend he was addressing Manicehans to give us a negative view of fallen human nature which Aquinas had to correct but the reformers passed on and brought it across the Aatlantic to poison the culture of the Colonies and after that… That same crud was adopted by Jansenists who formed Irish clergy during the English refrmation and came to Ireland after the revolution and set up ordinary schools. The Biblical Commission issued several nutty decisions about how to interpret Genesis and the Bible in general until Pius X11 and later scholarship, freed from the overkill of Modernism were then able to develop. Abu, you are sincere but alllow no room for growth in the Church’s coming to understand what Jesus taught. Still working on it in moral theology when the understanding of being made in God’s image is understood:, castrati for the Church choirs, “error has no rights” ao killl r deny worship rights to heretics and infidels, and so on.

For being a Catholic, you sure focus a TON on what sinful man has done in the history of the Church… Is there any way I can convince you to be more of a positive Catholic? Look at how people change rather than focus on their past mistakes? I’m guessing if you were God, mercy wouldn’t be on your list, would it?

God bless, and I’ll pray for you.

 

[Dominique1234]

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.

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.

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.

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.

I know of that, and also of the Catholic Bishops of Canada, how 90+% voted against Humanae Vitae!? Pretty sad if you ask me. Fools, false prophets, and black sheep of the Catholic Church. It’s getting better fortunately, young priests going back to what wasn’t broke to begin with, thankfully.

The smoke of satan has entered the Catholic Church, and Canada is one area he thrives in unfortunately. I know, I used to live there. You couldn’t go to Mass at two different churches without it being different liturgy and rubrics. All these ‘charismatics’ running the churches, and the priest following them like a blind man when he’s the one supposed to lead the flock! Sheep leading the shepherd. VERY sad to see. It’s still happening.