Why Do Most Catholics Ignore Humane Vitae?

[fix]

…& 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

I am still waiting for proof the magisterium taught error?

 

[fix]

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.

The issue is settled. The Church has always condemned contraception.

 

[fix]

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.

It does not have to be a Dogma to be irreformable and binding. It is infallible by the universal and ordinary magisterium.

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.

Murder?

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.

first, we must point out the tendency to measure everything on the basis of the distinction between the “infallible Magisterium” and the “fallible Magisterium”.

In this way infallibility becomes the criterion for all authority problems, to the point of actually replacing the concept of authority with that of infallibility. Furthermore, the question of the infallibility of the Magisterium is often confused with the question of the truth of a doctrine, by assuming that infallibility is the pre-qualification for the truth and irreformability of the doctrine, and by making the truth and definitive nature of the doctrine depend on whether or not it has been infallibly defined by the Magisterium. In fact, the truth and irreformability of a doctrine depends on the ), transmitted by Scripture and Tradition, while infallibility refers only to the degree of certitude of an act of magisterial teaching. In the various critical stances towards the recent documents of the Magisterium it is often forgotten that the infallible character of a teaching and the definitive and irrevocable character of the assent owed it is not a prerogative belonging solely to what has been solemnly “defined” by the Roman Pontiff or an Ecumenical Council. Whenever the Bishops dispersed in their individual Dioceses in communion with the Successor of Peter teach a truth to be held in a definitive way (cf. , n. 25, 2), they enjoy the same infallibility as the Pope’s Magisterium or that of a Council.

The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity; it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life.33

The Successor of Peter Teaches Infallibly

 

[godisgood77]

The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity; it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life.33

Get it… I’ve studied Theology of the Body on my own and at a Christopher West seminar. In order for intercourse to be marital, it needs to be open to creating life. However, at the same time the Church teaches birth control (NFP) that instructs the couple to target those times where human life is not possible… which is a blatant contradiction… So one question would be - How is spilling the seed in an infertile vagina different that spilling it elsewhere?

Why was this teaching reviewed if it was/is infallible?

I’m not trying to be disagreeable or obstinate… just doesn’t make any sense.

 

[kalbertone]

So you do believe in private interpretation.
Private interpretation would not be allowed if a particulair teaching is infallible.Out of the 1000s of teachings over the past 2,000 years very few are infallible.So if I were to quote a scripture comment to “prove” Christ was not divine(the divinity of Christ of course is a infallible teaching),that would be the error of private interpretation. But when a Pope quotes scripture or teaches,that does not mean it is infallible & when there is reason to debate it as well as reject it,you can.The pope is not the church. No teaching is understood to be infallible unless clearly established as such says canon law. Thats why many magisterial teachings were changes & dropped over the centuries

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.

The magisterium is only infallible when the people RECIEVE the teaching.After Nicae most Bishops & Pope Liberius followed the Heresy of Arianism(that Jesus is a creation of God). The people did not accept this believing Jesus was GOD in the flesh. This doctrine of reception/sense of the faithful is a indisputable part of the formuls of infallibilty. Its a charism that Christ willed his whole Church to possess)Lumen Gentium Vatican II)

You might want to explain how those are items that pertain to faith and morals? Everything.Can^t you see ? are you that blind. The Vatican bank charges Usury now but it was explicitly condemned for centuries before.So Popes also condemned Democracy,freedom of press,galileo,male & female children being taught in same class,sex in marriage as unholy etc

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

It is there to be formed & is a lifelong process.It is certainly to be used when someone teaches in a non infallible manner,2 + 2 = 5

 

[fix]

The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity; it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life.33

Get it… I’ve studied Theology of the Body on my own and at a Christopher West seminar. In order for intercourse to be marital, it needs to be open to creating life. However, at the same time the Church teaches birth control (NFP) that instructs the couple to target those times where human life is not possible… which is a blatant contradiction… So one question would be - How is spilling the seed in an infertile vagina different that spilling it elsewhere?

Why was this teaching reviewed if it was/is infallible?

I’m not trying to be disagreeable or obstinate… just doesn’t make any sense.

NFP does not suppress fertility. If your position were correct than any time a female is not ovulating it would be a sin to have sex.

The teaching was not reviewed. Science invented a medication to suppress fertility. The commission was to determine if these new technologies were a form of contraception or not. An advisory board not the magisterium. The teaching office decides not some other entity.

 

[fix]

It is there to be formed & is a lifelong process.It is certainly to be used when someone teaches in a non infallible manner,2 + 2 = 5

When has the Church taught error?

 

[godisgood77]

NFP does not suppress fertility. If your position were correct than any time a female is not ovulating it would be a sin to have sex.

The teaching was not reviewed. Science invented a medication to suppress fertility. The commission was to determine if these new technologies were a form of contraception or not. An advisory board not the magisterium. The teaching office decides not some other entity.

NFP targets the infertile times and is not open to life…it is purely unitive. It’s a contradiction to the basic tenet of the Catholic teaching. True?

 

[fpt]

Because there were two principal types of critics from different catholic movements:

Firstly, the traditionalist or traditional thinkers who are okay with the conclusions but who are not okay with the philosophical and theological approach and the anthropological thought. They are against thses intellectual methods that are in the document because according to them, the arguments would be very modern (modernism), not in link with the tradition, methods too much human, not very spiritual, and too much from Vatican the II.
Then the problem of the responsible procreation; Principle of marriage, or a simple exception and a simple tolerance??? Responsible procreation would be not a element of the marriage.
The first ends would be procreation (primary finalities) before the love bonding between wife and spouse. There would be an hierarchy of the ends of marriage in favor of children: it is a great issue.
Plus, the sense of words " grave" and “serious” reasons. The great problem of the interpretation. What are the grave or serious reasons?

Secondly, because people are very lazy for understand the true meaning of love
and
there are misunderstandings on the true message: Direct and voluntary contraception is wrong and sinful; Indirect and involuntary contraception is okay;
Direct and voluntary abortion is wrong and sinful; Indirect and involuntary abortion is okay (the question of double effect). The problem is to define correctly indirect and involuntary???

In conclusion:

The enemies of Humanae Vitae are the modernism, the relativism, the fideism, the neo-jansenism, the neo-puritanism, the theoretical providentialism (the idea that — Help yourself, The heaven will help you —, is not, per se, a good catholic slogan), the wrong interpretation about the terms – unitive and procreative – what is the complete sense wihout taboo…etc.

 

[HOLY_POOH_FAN]

Posts seem to be all over the lot. 1 The pope and a Council cannot and will not define or re-define what is clear Bible teaching- Virgin Birth, resurrection, Eucharist is literally This is My Body/Blood. 2. It has teased out in Greek philosophic language that Mary is Mother of God, Jesus is both God and Man. 3.pPpopes can be idiots theologically and morally but have never taught as Bishop of Rome any dogmatic or theological error. 4 Suppression of the fertile period, that tells a woman;s body she is pregnant 13 times a year is immoral, not to mention medically dangerous in normal circumstances ( regulating menses and such may be necessary for some for a time).5. Intentional use of the NFP method always to avoid conception is totally against an end of marriage, having children. 5 but use of NFP to avoid another conception for legitimate reasons is moral ####. COMMON SENSE is as much a part of theology-morality as Revelation and theology. PEACE,

 

[Dominique1234]

NFP targets the infertile times and is not open to life…it is purely unitive. It’s a contradiction to the basic tenet of the Catholic teaching. True?

Untrue. It is the NATURAL way to plan a family. Contraceptives can cause abortions. NFP does no such thing. It teaches moderation, as well as sacrifice and how to respect each other. It’s following what God wants. Temperance, self-control, understanding that we are not just flesh, but filled with the Spirit and when the time IS proper, the Spirit works His magic.

Contraception means against conception. If one is to enter a Catholic Sacramental Marriage, one must be open to life. NFP allows people to monitor their fertility, when ovulation occurs, in order to conceive. I don’t like that you’re cup is half empty. You seem to see it in a negative way when it is such a great way to evenly space children out naturally with a spirit of sacrifice and temperance. It’s not to STOP pregnancy, it’s to ACHIEVE pregnancy at the right time. It does, as you seem to focus on, help people to avoid an unwanted pregnancy NATURALLY, without potential abortions occurring.

Does this answer your doubts? I hope so. I will pray the Spirit clears your mind on this matter.

God bless.

 

[Dominique1234]

It is there to be formed & is a lifelong process.It is certainly to be used when someone teaches in a non infallible manner,2 + 2 = 5

The Catholic Church does not teach 2+2=5. I.e. the Church does not err… People do, but not the Church.

This is why there are so many demoninations ( and yes I wrote it like that on purpose) because of self-interpretations. This is why over 2000 years of teaching is more trusted than some pastor who started his own cult in the 14th century (Luther e.g.)

Satan LOVES disunity… hence so many idiots trying their luck at making a church… it’s quite unfortunate, and satan is succeeding at dividing it even more… He’s even got politicians and presidents in his back pocket… just look at how Obama’s defaced the Catholic Church by having ‘cafeteria catholics’ agree with him… It makes the Catholic Church look like a joke when you’ve got people like them leading this country and making MY Faith nothing more than some demonination… (again purposefully misspelled).

Again, I reiterate. The CHURCH will never err, but people, (such as Pelosi, who is NO Theologian), do err ALL the time…

 

[kalbertone]

The Catholic Church does not teach 2+2=5. I.e. the Church does not err… People do, but not the Church.

This is why there are so many demoninations ( and yes I wrote it like that on purpose) because of self-interpretations. This is why over 2000 years of teaching is more trusted than some pastor who started his own cult in the 14th century (Luther e.g.)

Satan LOVES disunity… hence so many idiots trying their luck at making a church… it’s quite unfortunate, and satan is succeeding at dividing it even more… He’s even got politicians and presidents in his back pocket… just look at how Obama’s defaced the Catholic Church by having ‘cafeteria catholics’ agree with him… It makes the Catholic Church look like a joke when you’ve got people like them leading this country and making MY Faith nothing more than some demonination… (again purposefully misspelled).

Again, I reiterate. The CHURCH will never err, but people, (such as Pelosi, who is NO Theologian), do err ALL the time…

 

[kalbertone]

You have a very very distorted view.We are all united as Catholics by celebrating mass,the sacraments,professions of the creed ,call to love one another,the marian dogmas,the Eucharist.But as you go further down on the latter there are teachings that are not so central.This is called UNITY IN DIVERSITY.The main bread & butter that defines you as catholic unites(see above) us but when it comes to lesser teachings,plurality is called for when necessarry.Even in the Vatican they dissent.Collegiality was rejected as taught by Vatican II,the principle of subsidiarity was rejected,Bishop Synods holding authority stripped,the local Church^s (name removed by moderator)ut as to who should become Bishop stripped.The Vatican has become a totalitarian state.This would of been impossible in the first 1500 years of Christianity. As Augustine stated “in what is essential unity,where there^s doubt–LIBERTY,above all love”. The Catholic Church^s tradition on sexuality is based on Greek paganism not scripture.For centuries that hailed as sex in marriage as dirt(pope Gregory the great,popes innocent,sixtus,etc) the only thing that chaNGED WAS EXACTLY HOW MUCH DIRT WAS IN THE MARRIAGE ACT.These are doctrines of demons.People reject the nonsense

 

[Dominique1234]

You have a very very distorted view.We are all united as Catholics by celebrating mass,the sacraments,professions of the creed ,call to love one another,the marian dogmas,the Eucharist.But as you go further down on the latter there are teachings that are not so central.This is called UNITY IN DIVERSITY.The main bread & butter that defines you as catholic unites(see above) us but when it comes to lesser teachings,plurality is called for when necessarry.Even in the Vatican they dissent.Collegiality was rejected as taught by Vatican II,the principle of subsidiarity was rejected,Bishop Synods holding authority stripped,the local Church^s (name removed by moderator)ut as to who should become Bishop stripped.The Vatican has become a totalitarian state.This would of been impossible in the first 1500 years of Christianity. As Augustine stated “in what is essential unity,where there^s doubt–LIBERTY,above all love”. The Catholic Church^s tradition on sexuality is based on Greek paganism not scripture.For centuries that hailed as sex in marriage as dirt(pope Gregory the great,popes innocent,sixtus,etc) the only thing that chaNGED WAS EXACTLY HOW MUCH DIRT WAS IN THE MARRIAGE ACT.These are doctrines of demons.People reject the nonsense

Again I reiterate. PEOPLE err. Not the Church. And anyone who thinks otherwise is a heretic. Are you saying that the Church errs? To me this is the position you are giving off.

 

[fix]

NFP targets the infertile times and is not open to life…it is purely unitive. It’s a contradiction to the basic tenet of the Catholic teaching. True?

False. NFP cannot be contraception. The act is always ordered toward procreation. Fertility is never suppressed. The act is not altered.

Please see this.

 

[fix]

You have a very very distorted view.We are all united as Catholics by celebrating mass,the sacraments,professions of the creed ,call to love one another,the marian dogmas,the Eucharist.But as you go further down on the latter there are teachings that are not so central.This is called UNITY IN DIVERSITY.The main bread & butter that defines you as catholic unites(see above) us but when it comes to lesser teachings,plurality is called for when necessarry.Even in the Vatican they dissent.Collegiality was rejected as taught by Vatican II,the principle of subsidiarity was rejected,Bishop Synods holding authority stripped,the local Church^s (name removed by moderator)ut as to who should become Bishop stripped.The Vatican has become a totalitarian state.This would of been impossible in the first 1500 years of Christianity. As Augustine stated “in what is essential unity,where there^s doubt–LIBERTY,above all love”. The Catholic Church^s tradition on sexuality is based on Greek paganism not scripture.For centuries that hailed as sex in marriage as dirt(pope Gregory the great,popes innocent,sixtus,etc) the only thing that chaNGED WAS EXACTLY HOW MUCH DIRT WAS IN THE MARRIAGE ACT.These are doctrines of demons.People reject the nonsense

The Church has always taught that contraception is an evil. The Church has stated specifically this teaching is irreformable. Do you have proof that this is wrong?

 

[Nabooru]

If God permits the Pope to be an idiot/philanderer/liar/money-grubbing hedonistic jerk in person, then why was he elected pope? Because the church hierarchy is run by human beings. The pope and humanity as a whole have the responsibility of choosing the correct man for the job - God is under no obligation to accept whomever is thrown His way, nor can He be expected to “guide” the ill-elected pope to at least give correct answers on matters or doctrine. This goes for the magisterium as well. The job is to work out God’s will, not dictate it.

I find it hard to believe that God would guide the pope and magisterium to a particular point and allow the majority of laity, and a great deal of bishops and priests, to be misguided into grave sin. The poster above is true - before, the church was a community, now it’s just a dictatorship. Paul VI three times denied the conclusions of lay people, religious and clergy (apparently all badly misguided) in order to put his own personal views in place. It might be an old teaching (like women covering their heads - no longer practiced, BTW), but that doesn’t make it irrevocably right - at least not in all circumstances.

I have no guilt about taking birth control, and most of my Catholic sister Christians do not either. To suggest that we just jumped into the decision lightly without a thought would be a grave matter. We put thought and reflection into it - at least I did - and my conscience, throughout all the attempts to convince it otherwise I’ve put it through, cannot accept that birth control is immoral or wrong. If sex without procreation is a mortal sin, should I go to confession for every time I ate when I wasn’t hungry and didn’t need the food? For when I panted even though I wasn’t out of breath? When I used my toes to open a drawer instead of my hands?

 

[fix]

If God permits the Pope to be an idiot/philanderer/liar/money-grubbing hedonistic jerk in person, then why was he elected pope? Because the church hierarchy is run by human beings. The pope and humanity as a whole have the responsibility of choosing the correct man for the job - God is under no obligation to accept whomever is thrown His way, nor can He be expected to “guide” the ill-elected pope to at least give correct answers on matters or doctrine. This goes for the magisterium as well. The job is to work out God’s will, not dictate it.

I find it hard to believe that God would guide the pope and magisterium to a particular point and allow the majority of laity, and a great deal of bishops and priests, to be misguided into grave sin. The poster above is true - before, the church was a community, now it’s just a dictatorship. Paul VI three times denied the conclusions of lay people, religious and clergy (apparently all badly misguided) in order to put his own personal views in place. It might be an old teaching (like women covering their heads - no longer practiced, BTW), but that doesn’t make it irrevocably right - at least not in all circumstances.

I have no guilt about taking birth control, and most of my Catholic sister Christians do not either. To suggest that we just jumped into the decision lightly without a thought would be a grave matter. We put thought and reflection into it - at least I did - and my conscience, throughout all the attempts to convince it otherwise I’ve put it through, cannot accept that birth control is immoral or wrong. If sex without procreation is a mortal sin, should I go to confession for every time I ate when I wasn’t hungry and didn’t need the food? For when I panted even though I wasn’t out of breath? When I used my toes to open a drawer instead of my hands?

What if one tries that some logic with racism? Murder?

 

[Chrono13]

Firstly, the traditionalist or traditional thinkers who are okay with the conclusions but who are not okay with the philosophical and theological approach and the anthropological thought. They are against thses intellectual methods that are in the document because according to them, the arguments would be very modern (modernism), not in link with the tradition, methods too much human, not very spiritual, and too much from Vatican the II.
Then the problem of the responsible procreation; Principle of marriage, or a simple exception and a simple tolerance??? Responsible procreation would be not a element of the marriage.

But even they are dishonest when talking about the real backgroud of prohibition- at least the historical one. That sex was considered evil even in marriage and that only procreation would approve the copulation.

The first ends would be procreation (primary finalities) before the love bonding between wife and spouse. There would be an hierarchy of the ends of marriage in favor of children: it is a great issue.

Yes. Tell that to people today- you are here to make babies, not love each other.

Plus, the sense of words " grave" and “serious” reasons. The great problem of the interpretation. What are the grave or serious reasons?

Not just that. If NFP is open to life, and procreation is not thwarted, limiting it’s usage to extreme reasons is also shaky.

Secondly, because people are very lazy for understand the true meaning of love
and
there are misunderstandings on the true message:

Can’t agree with you on that. Couples formed their decision on their experience, which simply concluded that way of avoiding birth is not causing any turbulence in their romantic relation. As long as it is not abortion.

The enemies of Humanae Vitae are the modernism, the relativism, the fideism, the neo-jansenism, the neo-puritanism, the theoretical providentialism (the idea that — Help yourself, The heaven will help you —, is not, per se, a good catholic slogan), the wrong interpretation about the terms – unitive and procreative – what is the complete sense wihout taboo…etc.

Fine, but there is also this “historicism” Earlier in this topic, we have learned that Early Church had completely other idea of contraception practice (why it is wrong) and this is not what clergy likes to talk about. Yet- it is history and fact of Church, and any avoidance of it would deny countless sacrifices layman had to offer in order to uphold the teaching.