Why Do Most Catholics Ignore Humane Vitae?

[GraceDK]

… because they haven’t been evangelised.
You cannot make people follow rules out of blind obedience.
First things first: You share the Gospel with them… let them hear so they can believe. When they believe, the Holy Spirit starts to work in their lives, the scales fall from their eyes. They get the gifts of wisdom, fortitude, knowledge, fear of God, councel etc. They see the hidden structures of this world. They start knowing the heart of Christ and are repulsed by the sins of the flesh. Its a movement from the inside out, never the outside in.

WE CAN NEVER EXPECT PEOPLE TO FOLLOW CHURCH TEACHINGS ON SECONDARY THINGS IF WE HAVEN’T PREACHED THE GOSPEL TO THEM.

Its quite natural. Why the heck should someone stop doing what they always did and what felt good or neutral, unless being transformed from the inside out?
What indicates a converted person is that they cannot sin anymore without suffering in their soul, they are changed inside. Softened in their heart… they start resembling God more and being sensitive to what is holy and what is not.

We cannot skip that. What we need primarily is RE-Evangelisation.

 

[choose_to_love]

@kalbertone: could you please expand on your understanding of the doctrine of reception, and what documents support that position? I have seen such mentioned many times but no one has ever been able to explain it, with some citation to either the CCC, or canon law, or some authoritative writing of whatever sort.

As a hint to where I am going, received by whom? If the laity for 15 or twenty centuries accepted, or did not obviously reject, a teaching, does a half-century’s worth of dissent qualify to reject a teaching?

 

[John_of_Woking]

Maybe dissenting Catholics don’t meditate on the Four Last Things enough. That could be a reason for the flagrant disregard of the prophetic encyclical

 

[kalbertone]

One more time: The current teaching of the Church, which, as in every human life, and institution, moves along slowly through moral developmen is that sexual activity is sacred and holy planned by God to bring pleasure and make babies. It has survived the Good God/Bad-god theology which Genesis challenged, the total identification of Original Sin with "concupisence by St Augustine, and various re-incarnations of the Sex is Bad anti-biblical view in Manicheanism, Puritanism, Albigensianism and Jansenism. As well as its further distortions in Hefner’s Playboy and Obama’s sick theology of marriage and “rights.” to abortion and other evils.
SEX in a healthy marriage is sacred and good. God built in non-fertile days for the woman. Discipline, genuine sacrificial love is required as it is for every human on the planet. Get it,and “get it on” unless you are single or celibate, then deal with it.

“One More Time”—There is NOTHING in the sources you claim of Jesus,scripture(other than magisterial documents going back to 1930s Casti Cinnubulae) or reason that a couple in good conscience cannot use Birth Control in a limited way to foster Conjugal Love with the responsible transmission of life. As far as development of sexuality in the Church^s teaching,at least when it comes to sexuality is absurd.The jewish tradition & one the apostles knew hed sexuality in marriage as good.So for INCOMPETENTS to come along after & say its evil & tainted then all of a sudden turn around before/after Vatican II & say yeah its good,is so ridiculous,absurd & perposterous it blows the mind. If thru the centuries they said its for procreation,love but no contraception—that^s one thing, but with no mandate from God or scripture to talk about evil,sin, in sexual relations & women being akin to the devil is such a farce that in the end your conscience must always rule supreme

 

[John_of_Woking]

Sir, the use of artificial birth controlis grave matter. You eternal soul is at stake

 

[godisgood77]

Define “love”. How is one giving freely of himself if he is withholding part of himself (his fertility)? How is he giving entirely if he is placing a barrier between him and his spouse?

Well simply put, a couple would discern their intention and motivation for engaging in the marital embrace and, hopefully, they are interested in being with each other as an expression of their love for one another. Further, hopefully the couple would enjoy this great gift of physical pleasure with each other in a way that is not full of lust and carnal desire. That is how a couple gives themselves to each other freely… How is that not giving freely of each other??

Were you not aware that there is a way to obey the Church and simultaneously express total and mutual self-giving to your spouse? If you think that NFP is self-gratifying, I would assume you’ve never practiced it.

NFP is birth control. The act is not open to life… in fact it specifically targets those times where life is not possible. It is silly to try rationalize this point another way. The teaching contradicts itself and is not infallible.

There is a difference to bringing pleasure to one’s spouse and dragging your spouse into grave sin. The Church recognizes that there is a way to avoid lapse into sin while pleasing one’s spouse and simultaneously avoiding pregnancy. What people seem to not like about it is that it require effort, and can be difficult. Yet, I’d challenge you to find any quote from Jesus that suggests our lives in this world will be easy, or that we can do whatever makes us feel good, regardless of the sinful nature or any given act.

I’d challenge you to cite one quote from Jesus where he talks about the rules of the biological part of the marital embrace.

 

[Nabooru]

If NFP is birth control as God planned it, then why was the menstrual cycle not understood until recently? God had a special way of spacing births but we didn’t know about it until 1900 years after Christ? And, the NFP doctrine assumes that a woman’s cycles are regular and predictable. Many of them are not. Mary I of England managed to trick herself twice into thinking she was pregnant partially on the basis of just how irregular her periods were. Of course periods can be regulated with birth control pills - but we’re not supposed to use those.

NFP is touted as God’s way of birth control, as His gift to us. Were the advances in science and medicine that made ABC possible not His gifts? The pill was invented by a Catholic! To me, to be granted this gift of scientific advantage and knowledge and deny it makes one no better than the Christian Scientists who reject medical treatment (unless they feel they really should need it, a position the RCC does not even allow its followers). Contraceptives have given us many great gifts, such as not forcing on ourselves a number of children we cannot feed, letting women realize a purpose outside of baby-making, and medical benefits such as less painful periods, regular periods, clear skin, etc. I personally went on the shot because I inherited my mother’s periods, which meant painful bloating, unrelievable cramps, and losing such a massive amount of blood that I’d get close to fainting. I missed school and work because of the pain and weakness. Now I don’t have periods at all, and the thought of having to go through them again is frankly terrifying. My mother eventually had to have a hysterectomy - the surgery had to be postponed initially because she lost so much blood during her last period that going under the knife just then would have put her in danger. Are we bad, immoral, selfish people? Does the woman who takes an epidural during childbirth commit a grave sin, because her labor pains are supposed to be her punishment for Eve’s sin?

Nowhere in the Scripture it is mentioned that the primary purpose of sex, the one that cannot be interrupted, is the begetting of children. Nowhere. If the Pope is going to claim a particular doctrine as infallible he’d better had the evidence to back it up, not merely his “authority”. If God had wanted some particular doctrine to never be in dispute, don’t you think it would be in the Bible? Otherwise we’re just assuming that the Pope is speaking God’s will, and that would make us no better than the followers of Joseph Smith. It is possible for the Pope to speak wrongly. Go’s may have given Peter the keys, but He did not say, “I am bound to agree with everything you say,” as the the church has authority over God and not the other way around. Could God forget to put something in Scripture and demand someone else fill it in for Him later?

 

[mommamia]

There are many reasons. Personally, I read and studied but in the end rejected the teaching. That is my choice and I guess I really don’t understand why it’s such a big deal to you?

I don’t understand the need to covert others to your beliefs, unless you somehow feel the need to justify that belief. I don’t feel the need to convince you I’m correct, because I am firm in my faith. And I am Catholic, whether you like it or not. I will not leave my Church because a few behave horribly, and I will not leave because I disagree with a teaching that really IMHO, isn’t central to the faith and truth.

I just find it odd that so many folks are so worried about other people’s sex lives.

 

[Nabooru]

There are many reasons. Personally, I read and studied but in the end rejected the teaching. That is my choice and I guess I really don’t understand why it’s such a big deal to you?

I don’t understand the need to covert others to your beliefs, unless you somehow feel the need to justify that belief. I don’t feel the need to convince you I’m correct, because I am firm in my faith. And I am Catholic, whether you like it or not. I will not leave my Church because a few behave horribly, and I will not leave because I disagree with a teaching that really IMHO, isn’t central to the faith and truth.

I just find it odd that so many folks are so worried about other people’s sex lives.

I too think a much bigger deal is made out of it than needs be. There are far worse sins one could commit. Using a condom is a victimless sin.

 

[fix]

I’d challenge you to cite one quote from Jesus where he talks about the rules of the biological part of the marital embrace.

I challenge you to find one verse that says private interpretation of the bible alone is the correct way to lead a Christain life.

 

[godisgood77]

I challenge you to find one verse that says private interpretation of the bible alone is the correct way to lead a Christain life.

I don’t know why you would challenge me to do that as I never have advocated for private interpretation alone and that is not my belief or position. Too bad you can’t answer my question and instead skirt the issue.

 

[fix]

I don’t know why you would challenge me to do that as I never have advocated for private interpretation alone and that is not belief or position. Too bad you can’t answer my question and instead skirt the issue.

The point is there is no need to have every single moral truth be listed in the bible in wording that would convince people who reject Church authority. Christ said he who hears you hears me and he who rejects you rejects Me. That is pretty clear, correct?

 

[godisgood77]

Yep, that is pretty clear for a pretty narrow interpretation. It’s simply not that simple. Since the late 1800’s, the church has formally adopted Papal infallibility. The fact that a distinction is made between fallible and infallible teaching is an admission of the human nature of the papacy. The doctrine and teaching we are discussing has not been declared an infallible teaching.

I’m interested though… would you make the same argument for the Papal Inquisitions or Pope Adrian IV’s Laudabiliter authorizing England to invade Ireland leading to hundreds of years of suppression, persecution and genocide or would you have lit the match in support of the Papal order to burn Father Jan Huss at the stake for wanting to have mass said in local vernacular and offer both the body and blood of Christ to the congregation (at that time only clergy took the blood…both practices the Church later adopted)…I could go on and on…

Point is that you can not blindly follow… you will have to answer on judgement day and having the answer of I did not ask any questions or develop my own conscience I was just following ordes, then I feel for you and will pray for you.

 

[godisgood77]

Yep, that is pretty clear for a pretty narrow interpretation. It’s simply not that simple. Since the late 1800’s, the church has formally adopted Papal infallibility. The fact that a distinction is made between fallible and infallible teaching is an admission of the human nature of the papacy. The doctrine and teaching we are discussing has not been declared an infallible teaching.

I’m interested though… would you make the same argument for the Papal Inquisitions or Pope Adrian IV’s Laudabiliter authorizing England to invade Ireland leading to hundreds of years of suppression, persecution and genocide or would you have lit the match in support of the Papal order to burn Father Jan Huss at the stake for wanting to have mass said in local vernacular and offer both the body and blood of Christ to the congregation (at that time only clergy took the blood…both practices the Church later adopted)…I could go on and on…

Point is that you can not blindly follow… you will have to answer on judgement day and if your answer is I did not ask any questions or develop my own conscience, I was just following ordes, then I feel for you and will pray for you.

 

[fix]

Yep, that is pretty clear for a pretty narrow interpretation.

So you do believe in private interpretation.

It’s simply not that simple. Since the late 1800’s, the church has formally adopted Papal infallibility. The fact that a distinction is made between fallible and infallible teaching is an admission of the human nature of the papacy. The doctrine and teaching we are discussing has not been declared an infallible teaching.

The magisterium has always been infallible. It did not suddenly change at Vatican I. The teaching here is infallible by the ordinary and universal magisterium. But, frankly that does not really matter as moral truth is not dependent upon a declaration of infallibillity. Infallibility is not the criterion to use.

I’m interested though… would you make the same argument for the Papal Inquisitions or Pope Adrian IV’s Laudabiliter authorizing England to invade Ireland leading to hundreds of years of suppression, persecution and genocide or would you have lit the match in support of the Papal order to burn Father Jan Huss at the stake for wanting to have mass said in local vernacular and offer both the body and blood of Christ to the congregation (at that time only clergy took the blood…both practices the Church later adopted)…I could go on and on…

You might want to explain how those are items that pertain to faith and morals?

Point is that you can not blindly follow… you will have to answer on judgement day and having the answer of I did not ask any questions or develop my own conscience I was just following ordes, then I feel for you and will pray for you.

You have it backward. None are so blind as those who refuse to see. One’s conscience does not invent right and wrong.

 

[choose_to_love]

Yay for resurrected threads! We are a resurrection faith, right?

@nabooru: #1) there is good evidence that the Manichees understood the female fertility cycle in St. Augustine’s times. I think there is also evidence that very primitive tribes understand the cycle in relation to ecological breastfeeding and the return of fertility, but I am less certain of that (meaning I might have a harder time finding an online source).

#2) doctrine in dispute/it would be in Bible: Can you honestly say that the understanding of the Trinity is neatly spelled out in the Bible, or did that require some guidance from the Holy Spirit? Secondly, it is pretty clearly spelled out in the Onan story, i.e., de-naturing the sexual act is bad, bad, bad. Three, I do not think the NT or OT anywhere claims to be a self-sufficient source of “rules”, in fact I think it claims the opposite, and indeed does not contain a divinely inspired table of contents. If you trust the Church to say which books belong in the Bible at all, why not trust its judgment on issues of faith and morals?

#3) Your questions about use of hormonal medications to treat bodily diseases, and the equation of that with “contraception”, seems to indicate that you do not really understand the CC’s teaching.

@godisgood: I had the same thought as fix upon reading your post. If private interpretation/sola scruptura is not your position, that is a curious question to post. Does the NT claim for itself that is the exhaustive source of Truth? I do not think it does, nor does Jesus anywhere direct anything to be written down.

 

[kalbertone]

So you do believe in private interpretation.

The magisterium has always been infallible. It did not suddenly change at Vatican I. The teaching here is infallible by the ordinary and universal magisterium. But, frankly that does not really matter as moral truth is not dependent upon a declaration of infallibillity. Infallibility is not the criterion to use.
Really,why was Usury under any circumstance condemned by councils Nicae,Lateran,Vienne but by the end of 1800s,the “church” said it was OK to charge interest on loans moderately. Why was Pope Vigilius excommunicated by a African Synod Of Bishops.Why did Pius IX uphold slavery as moral in the name of Natural Law & condemn Democracy ?I could go on forever with this laundry list. Infallibilty belongs to the WHOLE CHURCH. a teaching must be recieved by the People.Reception/sense of The Faithful was affirmed by Vatican II & 1,it is a ancient concept

You might want to explain how those are items that pertain to faith and morals?

You have it backward. None are so blind as those who refuse to see. One’s conscience does not invent right and wrong.

…& neither does one^s conscience check or leave its brain outside the door.Like when a Pope Gregory VII condemned the building of the railroad as a work of the devil.That^s why God gave conscience to distinguish between his demands & needless burdens by incompetents or physchological bullies

 

[godisgood77]

So you do believe in private interpretation.

@godisgood: I had the same thought as fix upon reading your post. If private interpretation/sola scruptura is not your position, that is a curious question to post. Does the NT claim for itself that is the exhaustive source of Truth? I do not think it does, nor does Jesus anywhere direct anything to be written down.

I was simply using the same tactic as an earlier poster did when he/she said “I’d challenge you to find any quote from Jesus that suggests our lives in this world will be easy, or that we can do whatever makes us feel good, regardless of the sinful nature or any given act.”

I do not believe in private interpretation when it comes to Dogma and infallible teaching. I do however believe discussing and debating issues that do not fall under those umbrellas… like this one.

 

[godisgood77]

So you do believe in private interpretation.

Not when it comes to Dogma and infallible teaching… I believe in debating those issues that do not fall under those umbrellas… like this one.

The magisterium has always been infallible. It did not suddenly change at Vatican I. The teaching here is infallible by the ordinary and universal magisterium. But, frankly that does not really matter as moral truth is not dependent upon a declaration of infallibillity. Infallibility is not the criterion to use.

That is why I said formally declared… the idea has been around and loosely defined for centuries… but it’s a hot topic that not even the Pope’s agree on… I recommend reading some John XXIII and Paul VI’s thoughts on the topic.

On Infallibilty, I think you’re wrong, but I’m open to being convinced… Infallibility is defined this way - Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church which states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error[1] when, exercising his office of shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he solemnly declares that a teaching on faith and morals is to be held by the whole Church.[2] Papal infallibility thus does not extend to declarations by the Pope—even on faith or morals, and still less, of course, on other matters—not solemnly proposed as dogmas to be professed by the whole Church. Nor is infallibility to be confused with impeccability, as if the Pope were immune from sin. Seems like the faith and morals is exactly what we are talking about here.

How does the church define a moral truth? Why would the Pope send a moral truth to committee at the council to be debated? What’s next??? Debating the validity of the Church’s teaching on the Resurrection or the True Presence? Help me understand how this issue is a moral truth, please.

I think you are wrong also when declaring that the ordinary magisterium is infallible… I think that only holds true when there is universal agreement… on this topic, you can not say that there is consensus… But again, I’m open to being convinced.

You might want to explain how those are items that pertain to faith and morals?

Murder?

You have it backward. None are so blind as those who refuse to see. One’s conscience does not invent right and wrong.

Exactly my point…on the blind who refuse to see. I don’t know how your conscience comment is relevant to this discussion.

For the record, I feel compelled to state that I am staunchly opposed to artificial birth control. I am in favor of Church sanctioned birth control (NFP)…, but feel like needs to be refined due to some silly contradictions in the teaching… for instance saying that each marital embrace needs to be open to life and then teaching to specifically target those times when the act will not be open to life… God gave us this great gift of sexual pleasure and the act is a natural and ordered a thing that there is in the world… I’m not sure why it needs to be regulated to the Nth degree.

 

[HOLY_POOH_FAN]

1. Papal Infallibillty was always accepted and recognised, it was formally and narrowly defined in 1830, but that is true of all dogmas, they are taught and believed by the whole Church before being defined. 2 Never heard of a ;pope condemning the railroad, one textbook I read once said a Pope condemned a meteorite, more nonsense to attack the Church, 3. John’s Gospel says that the whole world could not contain all the books of what Jesus said. However, the OT 's Leviticus is practiced by Orthodox Jews and is the continuing basis for immoral birth prevention by the Catholic Church. The C of E allowed it in 1930 and see where they are now with sex and marriage and abortion and ordination- bisexuals just this week. Using a condom or female birth prevention is not automatically necessarily a victimless sin for married persons. May be always for singles if it used to take advantage of the female, or by a married person in adultery, which is what fornication and adultery are- “using” the other. Rarely in a committed marriage is artificial birth prevention moral, if at all,