Why Do Most Catholics Ignore Humane Vitae?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fnr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
False. NFP cannot be contraception. The act is always ordered toward procreation. Fertility is never suppressed. The act is not altered.

Please see this.
It says…

Now, to be very clear, there is nothing in any way contraceptive about natural family planning. Neither before, nor during, nor after sexual intercourse has a couple practicing NFP done nothing at all to prevent procreation or to render the act infertile. The sexual act may in fact be infertile (i.e. it may not be possible for the woman to conceive at that time), but the couple has not done anything to make the act infertile.

This is so dishonest. Couple has, before the intercourse, charted the cricle and observed the signs of woman fertility to counter it. During the act, it is performed with clear desire to destroy the ejaculated semen, and after it, the semen gets destroyed because the couple wanted it so.

Church Fathers shared my understanding.
 
What if one tries that some logic with racism? Murder?
Why would they? There’s no doubt about racism or murder, it hurts people. Contraception doesn’t hurt anyone unless you make some gross assumptions about it and how the reproductive system works.

For example, I know that anti-contraception folks often say that contraception causes abortions, but that’s incredibly rare, and only applies to some, not all, contraceptives. For example, with my shot I don’t ovulate or menstruate at all. At any rate, the female body expels fertilized eggs on its own more often than it implants them. In either case the effect is unintended, and if a woman is on ABC and an egg does not implant, one cannot definitively say whether it was caused by the ABC or natural. If a woman or couple does not want to risk losing a fertilized egg she or they can use a method that does not involve the chance, howeve small. They could use the shot, condoms, diaphragms, etc.

The assumption that ABC is evil is just that, an assumption. To say the least it’s up for debate. Personally I find it offensive that a woman’s reproductive system could be only useful when it’s used for making babies, and cannot be used simply to bring pleasure to herself and her husband. I feel that denying birth control to women objectifies them into baby factories. And to say that it somehow trivializes marital love… Shouldn’t it be up to the couple to decide what defines their love? I very much doubt that married couples using ABC sit on the edges of their beds, lamenting that their sex is so loveless. (Abstinent couples might think that about their marriage, though…)
 
It says…

Now, to be very clear, there is nothing in any way contraceptive about natural family planning. Neither before, nor during, nor after sexual intercourse has a couple practicing NFP done nothing at all to prevent procreation or to render the act infertile. The sexual act may in fact be infertile (i.e. it may not be possible for the woman to conceive at that time), but the couple has not done anything to make the act infertile.

This is so dishonest. Couple has, before the intercourse, charted the cricle and observed the signs of woman fertility to counter it. During the act, it is performed with clear desire to destroy the ejaculated semen, and after it, the semen gets destroyed because the couple wanted it so.

Church Fathers shared my understanding.
I have no idea how you come up with that? Charting does not involve the act. The act is not altered. Your comments about semen make no sense.
 
Why would they?
Their conscience tells them.
There’s no doubt about racism or murder, it hurts people.
Says who? One’s conscience is supreme by your standard.
Contraception doesn’t hurt anyone unless you make some gross assumptions about it and how the reproductive system works.
How do you define “hurt”? Plenty of serious sins do not physically hurt anyone. What is this new standrad you choose?
For example, I know that anti-contraception folks often say that contraception causes abortions, but that’s incredibly rare, and only applies to some, not all, contraceptives.
How rare? How rare does it have to be to be mortally sinful?
For example, with my shot I don’t ovulate or menstruate at all. At any rate, the female body expels fertilized eggs on its own more often than it implants them. In either case the effect is unintended, and if a woman is on ABC and an egg does not implant, one cannot definitively say whether it was caused by the ABC or natural.
The assumption that ABC is evil is just that, an assumption. To say the least it’s up for debate. Personally I find it offensive that a woman’s reproductive system could be only useful when it’s used for making babies, and cannot be used simply to bring pleasure to herself and her husband. I feel that denying birth control to women objectifies them into baby factories. And to say that it somehow trivializes marital love… Shouldn’t it be up to the couple to decide what defines their love? I very much doubt that married couples using ABC sit on the edges of their beds, lamenting that their sex is so loveless. (Abstinent couples might think that about their marriage, though…)
What is love?
 
Charting does in fact involve the act since it helps confirm the time at which the act would be infertile. To say that it isn’t involved would be like saying prior reflection has nothing to do with confession.
 
Their conscience tells them.

Says who? One’s conscience is supreme by your standard.

How do you define “hurt”? Plenty of serious sins do not physically hurt anyone. What is this new standrad you choose?

How rare? How rare does it have to be to be mortally sinful?

What is love?
Did I say the conscience is supreme? I would say that if one has a justified conscience, that should count. A justified conscience is one that has examined all aspects of the issue at hand, including what authorities have to say. That does not mean they have to agree with those authorities. It also takes supreme God’s law. There is no question that God disapproves of murder - it is written in the Scriptures and, as Catholics would admit, on men’s hearts. The immorality of contraception is neither found in Scripture nor written on the hearts of men. If it were the condemnation of it would be far more widespread and unquestioned as a fact of morality.

Your own Church admits that a sun cannot be mortal if it is unintentional. I don’t think I need to define “hurt”, if you need help you can always use a dictionary. Sins such as theft and murder or maiming or greed hurt others in an obvious way, taking advantage of a person and seeing them as opportunities for gain, either material or sadistic, rather than living brings. Homosexuality carries a risk of disease far greater than heterosexuality, and at any rate is specifically outlawed in Scripture. Bad thoughts hurt ourselves. Contraception hurts neither the user nor anyone else.

That being said - indeed, what is love? Ask a hundred different couples and you’ll get a hundred different answers. Have it, and you’ll know.
 
I have no idea how you come up with that? Charting does not involve the act. The act is not altered. Your comments about semen make no sense.
We are not talking about the act, but the conception. NFP is not against act, it is used to provide an act without conception.

The comments about semen made perfect sense. People chart because they intent semen to exit the woman’s body before a chance for conception comes.
 
In reading the posts there are good arguements on both sides-those who support the Church’s teachings do so because of faith in the Teaching of the Magisterium-those who argue against employ biology-psychology and social factors-

This issue is one of a few reasons why I left the Roman catholic Church-I agree that the majority of Catholics just do not pay attention to this Teaching-it strikes me that they should as it is a major teaching (if not a critical one)

If present Roman Catholics have a problem with this teaching there are a few choices:
  1. do what most do and pay no attention-the Priest will not ask you about it 2)re read the Teaching and perhaps you will agree with it 3) leave the Church-
As a Physician who treats the poor and marginalized I just could not do it and am a catholic in exile
 
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.
You mean like Pope vigilius excommunicated by a african Synod of Bishops for heresy or Pope Honorius excommunicated by the 3rd council of constantinople. How about centuries of condemnation of Usury but the Vatican bank charges usury today. What is infallible is the church as a WHOLE(including the people) when they along with Pope & Bishops recieve a teaching
 
You mean like Pope vigilius excommunicated by a african Synod of Bishops for heresy or Pope Honorius excommunicated by the 3rd council of constantinople. How about centuries of condemnation of Usury but the Vatican bank charges usury today. What is infallible is the church as a WHOLE(including the people) when they along with Pope & Bishops recieve a teaching
Yes, exactly. People err… even popes. But the Church, given to us from Christ and His teachings do not err.God does not err, therefore His Church doesn’t either. You CANNOT have an infallible teaching from fallability. Therefore, it is not a person (pope, bishop, etc) that makes up what this means. It’s God’s Holy Word that is repeated and upheld as a rule that every Catholic needs to follow when speaking of infallible teaching.

You are proving my point perfectly. Thanks. The Vatican bank is not the Church. The people who work at the bank are not infallible.Whether they charge usury or not is not an infallible teaching. Any Pope is not infallible, but when a Pope proclaims scripture to be True, (which it is) by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, then nothing really changes. All it does is reiterate what was already infallible, when speaking of canon law and dogma. You mustn’t be Catholic, or you’re just an ignorant one. Do a little more research before proclaiming that people in the Catholic Church are infallible. There is no such thing. No PERSON, except Christ, God, Holy Spirit, is infallible, as well as HIS teachings. When a person repeats what God says to be Truth, it is not this person claiming anything. They’re repeating what God says to be Truth. It is the TEACHING that is infallible, not the person stating it. If the Pope was infallible, then wouldn’t he be equal to God?

Hope this helps. 🙂
 
Did I say the conscience is supreme? I would say that if one has a justified conscience, that should count. A justified conscience is one that has examined all aspects of the issue at hand, including what authorities have to say. That does not mean they have to agree with those authorities. It also takes supreme God’s law. There is no question that God disapproves of murder - it is written in the Scriptures and, as Catholics would admit, on men’s hearts. The immorality of contraception is neither found in Scripture nor written on the hearts of men. If it were the condemnation of it would be far more widespread and unquestioned as a fact of morality.

Your own Church admits that a sun cannot be mortal if it is unintentional. I don’t think I need to define “hurt”, if you need help you can always use a dictionary. Sins such as theft and murder or maiming or greed hurt others in an obvious way, taking advantage of a person and seeing them as opportunities for gain, either material or sadistic, rather than living brings. Homosexuality carries a risk of disease far greater than heterosexuality, and at any rate is specifically outlawed in Scripture. Bad thoughts hurt ourselves. Contraception hurts neither the user nor anyone else.

That being said - indeed, what is love? Ask a hundred different couples and you’ll get a hundred different answers. Have it, and you’ll know.
Anglo-Catholic? Really? You are on a Catholic website. Please respect OUR laws and rules. Your Bible is not interpreted the same as ours, obviously, so your remark to contraception not being biblical is false on the precept of you not being Catholic. You need to reread a TON of scripture that speaks against ‘spilling your seed’…Genesis 38:9. for example. Pastors will misinterpret this scripture to satisfy the “tastes of the times”. it’s the 21st century after all and times change right? Well fortunately for Catholics, GOD does NOT change. Neither does his teachings on contraception.
 
It says…

Now, to be very clear, there is nothing in any way contraceptive about natural family planning. Neither before, nor during, nor after sexual intercourse has a couple practicing NFP done nothing at all to prevent procreation or to render the act infertile. The sexual act may in fact be infertile (i.e. it may not be possible for the woman to conceive at that time), but the couple has not done anything to make the act infertile.

This is so dishonest. Couple has, before the intercourse, charted the cricle and observed the signs of woman fertility to counter it. During the act, it is performed with clear desire to destroy the ejaculated semen, and after it, the semen gets destroyed because the couple wanted it so.

Church Fathers shared my understanding.
What is highlighted in red represents exaclty what DOES NOT HAPPEN with true Catholic couples. They ABSTAIN at this precise time. A spirit of sacrifice and temperance is needed to do this of course, which you conclude that Catholic couples do not practice. They have sex during fertile times, but spill their seed. In NO WAY does the Catholic Church teach this. You are greatly mistaken. Your assumption is making you look foolish.

Now back to the point. You are assuming there is a sexual act being preformed when any Catholic of good conscience knows to abstain at this time in ovulation. That’s also what the Church teaches. To be in good standing with the Church, one must follow this.

Hope this answered your obvious delusions and confusions.
 
What is highlighted in red represents exaclty what DOES NOT HAPPEN with true Catholic couples. They ABSTAIN at this precise time.
You have missed the point. I made it clearly that couples using NFP have relations on specific days precisely because they desire ejaculated semen to be rejected and destroyed by human body. They have realtions on specific day with desire to destroy semen- end of discussion.
A spirit of sacrifice and temperance is needed to do this of course, which you conclude that Catholic couples do not practice. They have sex during fertile times, but spill their seed. In NO WAY does the Catholic Church teach this. You are greatly mistaken. Your assumption is making you look foolish.
At the contrary, they have sex on INFERTILE days to destroy semen (this is the sole purpose of their sexual activity at that day).

The Catholic Church taught that sex is only for procreation, being a prime reason why contraception was forbidden. NFP included, as witnessed by writtings of Fathers.
Now back to the point. You are assuming there is a sexual act being preformed when any Catholic of good conscience knows to abstain at this time in ovulation. That’s also what the Church teaches. To be in good standing with the Church, one must follow this.
You are putting the words in my mouth. 🙂 I never said such thing.
Hope this answered your obvious delusions and confusions.
Nope. I’m still sad and confused.
 
Often it is because they don’t know that NFP actually works or even exists or they don’t think the Church allows it.

Or an overzealous NFP promoter scares them off.

I saw one poster on Melinda Gates website in full support of Mrs. Gates who claims that she is using FAM (secular NFP) “despite” her Catholic beliefs. She and her husband absolutely love it (from the post it appears she is NOT using it with condoms) and is promoting it as a great alternative to birth control pills and condoms. :rolleyes:
 
I can’t see why it was and is a truly prophetic and insightful encyclical.

Shalom

God bless
 
Not sure it was answered yet but USURY even in civil law is EXCESSIVE interest charging, and is illegal. Not the same as legitimate INTEREST which is moral and legal. Money has changed its meaning. In the OT people gave their cloak as a pledge for a debut but were ordered to return it to allow the owner to sleep comfortably at night. Justice and mercy and common sense are legitimately linked,
 
Yes, exactly. People err… even popes. But the Church, given to us from Christ and His teachings do not err.God does not err, therefore His Church doesn’t either. You CANNOT have an infallible teaching from fallability. Therefore, it is not a person (pope, bishop, etc) that makes up what this means. It’s God’s Holy Word that is repeated and upheld as a rule that every Catholic needs to follow when speaking of infallible teaching.

You are proving my point perfectly. Thanks. The Vatican bank is not the Church. The people who work at the bank are not infallible.Whether they charge usury or not is not an infallible teaching. Any Pope is not infallible, but when a Pope proclaims scripture to be True, (which it is) by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, then nothing really changes. All it does is reiterate what was already infallible, when speaking of canon law and dogma. You mustn’t be Catholic, or you’re just an ignorant one. Do a little more research before proclaiming that people in the Catholic Church are infallible. There is no such thing. No PERSON, except Christ, God, Holy Spirit, is infallible, as well as HIS teachings. When a person repeats what God says to be Truth, it is not this person claiming anything. They’re repeating what God says to be Truth. It is the TEACHING that is infallible, not the person stating it. If the Pope was infallible, then wouldn’t he be equal to God?

Hope this helps. 🙂
 
In case there is any confusion, this is what the Catechism says. This is what the Church teaches. If the Catechism is wrong, then I can do no better and I will just go down with the ship.

2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."144 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.145


God created sex to be pleasurable, therefore, God intended for married couples to enjoy sex and seeking sexual pleasure in marriage is a good thing, provided that spouses do not pursue their own pleasure to the point where their mutual love and unity is forgotten (i.e. the limits of just moderation).

2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.
The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which "is on the side of life"150 teaches that "each and every marriage act must remain open ‘per se’ to the transmission of life."151 “This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.”

All sexual activity in a marriage must be BOTH for the good of the spouses and open to life. Separating the procreative from the act is sinful, but so is having procreative sex when it is not for the good of the spouses. EVERY act must be “open” to the transmission of life and man on his own initiative may not break it.

2367 Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God.153 "Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility."154

Couples are called to both generously create new life and to responsible parenthood.

2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality.

As part of the Church’s their duty responsible parenthood, couples may plan their families and avoid pregnancy. However, they must carefully discern whether they are avoiding pregnancy for good, responsible, “just” reasons or out of selfishness. Furthermore, they must use moral means to avoid pregnancy.

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.157 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil.

Natural Family Planning is moral and encouraged. Contraception, which interferes with the conjugal act to make conception impossible is intrinsically evil. But this does not necessarily include ALL sexual activities that are not open to life. Some are not contraception, but forms of masturbation, which is a different sin.

2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."137 “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."138
To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability.

Masturbation (including mutual masturbation) is sexual stimulation outside of the context of the marriage relationship (i.e. the context of married intercourse). It is based in lust and is a sin. But it is NOT contraception. While contraception is “intrinsically evil”, masturbation is merely “intrinsically gravely disordered”. The catechism goes on further to mention mitigating factors, such as immaturity, habit, anxiety, and other psychological or social factors. If such factors apply to an individual, they certainly apply to married couples together.

IMHO, the difference between the two is whether the act itself carries a risk of pregnancy or whether it is interference with an act that can lead to pregnancy. If either is the case, it is contraception, if not, it is masturbation. For example, withdrawal is a form of contraception, even though climax is brought outside of intercourse. It is interference with the natural procreative act. Oral sex (to completion, outside the context of intercourse), on the other hand, is a form of masturbation. The act is inherently non-procreative stimulation of the genitals and there is no interference with anything.

So, from the Catechism, we can draw the following conclusions:

Intercourse = Objectively licit act at all times. Designed to be mutually loving and pleasurable. May or may not be subjectively sinful based on external conditions and if the intent of the spouses is incompatible with the unitive aspect of marital relations. As for procreation, a procreative action shows procreative intent, no matter what is on the spouse’s mind.

NFP = Always objectively licit and encouraged, but may be subjectively sinful if done out of selfishness. This is a sin of selfishness, not contraception. However, because according to the Catechism, practicing the periodic continence of NFP is completely contrary to an attitude of selfishness, I believe it is unlikely that many couples could use it for selfish reasons.

Contraception = Always intrinsically evil. Period.

Masturbation = Always intrinsically gravely disordered and sinful, but there may be mitigating factors that reduce culpability.
 
You have missed the point. I made it clearly that couples using NFP have relations on specific days precisely because they desire ejaculated semen to be rejected and destroyed by human body. They have realtions on specific day with desire to destroy semen- end of discussion.

At the contrary, they have sex on INFERTILE days to destroy semen (this is the sole purpose of their sexual activity at that day).

The Catholic Church taught that sex is only for procreation, being a prime reason why contraception was forbidden. NFP included, as witnessed by writtings of Fathers.

You are putting the words in my mouth. 🙂 I never said such thing.

Nope. I’m still sad and confused.
Read what “WAYWARDSON” wrote. He quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It explains everything very well. It’s exactly what the Church teaches on contraception and the natural way to ‘space children out naturally’.

BTW, a woman’s cycle is not set in stone, therefore women can double-ovulate within one cycle. This means that there is ALWAYS a possibility to conceive a child.

Just read what “WAYWARDSON” wrote. It explains everything. I’m just to lazy to give you all the information. Sorry… lol. 🙂
 
You mean like Pope vigilius excommunicated by a african Synod of Bishops for heresy or Pope Honorius excommunicated by the 3rd council of constantinople. How about centuries of condemnation of Usury but the Vatican bank charges usury today. What is infallible is the church as a WHOLE(including the people) when they along with Pope & Bishops recieve a teaching
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top