Why Do Most Catholics Ignore Humane Vitae?

[waywardson]

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.

Thank you. There is a lot of misinformation going around on the internet.

You have the right idea, but the wrong science. “Ovulation occurs over a period of about 15 minutes and even when more than one ovum is released, as in a twin pregnancy, the multiple ovulations occur very close together in time.” woomb.org/bom/science/physiology.html This is why NFP works. Genuine method errors are rare, but they do happen. Most of the time when a couple has an unexpected pregnancy, it is due to human error. But since 100% of couples who use it are human, this can be expected.

Oh, if you haven’t been to woomb.org, it is THE site for the science of NFP. The Billings Method is the foundation of all modern forms of NFP and was discovered by two married Catholic doctors in Australia who promote it in a non-sectarian way.

Their more “user friendly” site www.thebillingsovulationmethod.com is a great introduction to their method with full instructions. In my opinion it is the BEST NFP site on the internet and a link that you should forward to ANYONE who is wondering about Church teaching, any couple who is interested in an alternative to contraception, or just any woman who wants to know more about her body.

 

[Chrono13]

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

Define the moderation. Especially in it’s historical context (what was moderate intercourse to Church Fathers? Was being open to life enough?)

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

Which is at complete odds with historical teaching, which claimed they are to copulate only for procreation and have venial sins to lower the chance of adultery. If you wish more detailed explanation, read the initial posts of this topic.

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 proven by initial posts, the objective criteria of morality in past was - as mentioned above- procreation and sinful relief of sexual appetite. While CCC can construct his own morality systems, it surely can not bypass it’s own history.

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.

This definition is of newer date. The Augustinian Christianity narrowed lust to every desire in intercourse apart from procreation. This is why Augustine claimed NFP is form of contraception.

 

[John_of_Woking]

Contraception=Grave Matter. See CCC

End of argument.

Rome has spoken. The case is closed

Don’t risk hell

 

[Chrono13]

Read what “WAYWARDSON” wrote. He quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It explains everything very well.

No, it explains everything but what Catholic layman, such as me, wants to talk about. It’s not Cathecism’s fault, it was not writen for every question that might come out. But on the other hand, you will need more then a massive copy/paste of it for a usable reply.

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.

This simply means that their desire to destroy semen might collapse more often then usual.

Also, if God creates children, practicing NFP is useless. You will not concieve a child He doesn’t want, neither will you avoid pregnancy by abstinance if He wants it to be concieved. How Humanae Vitae explains this?

Just read what “WAYWARDSON” wrote. It explains everything. I’m just to lazy to give you all the information. Sorry… lol.

What he gave me is what mainstream Catholics usually say when asked certain questions. With all due respect, these things are something constantly repeated, never reflected or defended on field of discussion.

 

[godisgood77]

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

Please see this.

Thanks for the link. I’m not saying that NFP is contraceptive. I’m saying that when using NFP, you are targeting those time where pregnancy is not possible…it’s unitive only. That is a contradiction.

 

[waywardson]

Define the moderation. Especially in it’s historical context (what was moderate intercourse to Church Fathers? Was being open to life enough?)

Which is at complete odds with historical teaching, which claimed they are to copulate only for procreation and have venial sins to lower the chance of adultery. If you wish more detailed explanation, read the initial posts of this topic.

As proven by initial posts, the objective criteria of morality in past was - as mentioned above- procreation and sinful relief of sexual appetite. While CCC can construct his own morality systems, it surely can not bypass it’s own history.

This definition is of newer date. The Augustinian Christianity narrowed lust to every desire in intercourse apart from procreation. This is why Augustine claimed NFP is form of contraception.

I put an explanation of what each line of what each part of the CCC says in simple English. Go read Pius XII’s address to midwives if you want to know more about pleasure in marriage and “just moderation”, that’s where the quote came from. Of course, Pius was rather long winded and talking to a specific audience. He was telling the midwives not to teach sexual techniques to young brides, but to discreetly and modestly answer any questions they might have if they had problems.

Augustine never claimed that NFP was a form of contraception. What he condemned was the Manchean requirement that couples use a crude form of NFP to avoid conception.

As for Augustine and the Church fathers, they are important, but they were neither inspired nor infallible. St. John Chrysostom actually changed his mind on the matter, going from very negative to very positive over the course of his lifetime. He approved of naturally sterile intercourse (NFP), which made the couple “one flesh”, like “perfume mixing with ointment”. However, strongly condemned contraception, which he considered “pre-emptive murder”.

fathersofthechurch.com/2008/04/04/chrysostom-and-the-mysteries-of-marriage/

 

[Chrono13]

I put an explanation of what each line of what each part of the CCC says in simple English.

And I said in simple English how it relates to original doctrine.

Go read Pius XII’s address to midwives if you want to know more about pleasure in marriage and “just moderation”

I have. It has nothing to do with early teaching of the Fathers.

Augustine never claimed that NFP was a form of contraception. What he condemned was the Manchean requirement that couples use a crude form of NFP to avoid conception.

As for Augustine and the Church fathers, they are important, but they were neither inspired nor infallible.

I agree, but they can not be ignored or watered down when being reflected (as it is usually done in recent times). We usually speak of “constant teaching” regarding contraception and recall their sayings, but when these sayings are actually cited, it is obvious they had completely other system of values then us (and different conclusions regarding certain things, such as NFP).

St. John Chrysostom actually changed his mind on the matter, going from very negative to very positive over the course of his lifetime. He approved of naturally sterile intercourse (NFP), which made the couple “one flesh”, like “perfume mixing with ointment”.

If you are talking about sex between older people, then probably yes. However it is questionable whether St. Chrysostom would call a perfectly young and healthy woman sterile just because she has infertile period. And even more questionable is whether he would allow it’s “usage” to provide intercourse with lower chance of conception.

Also, Church after Chrysostom concentrated more on his negative side, and even today it tries hard to conceal such influences.

 

[Chrono13]

I put an explanation of what each line of what each part of the CCC says in simple English.

And I said in simple English how it relates to original doctrine.

Go read Pius XII’s address to midwives if you want to know more about pleasure in marriage and “just moderation”

I have. It has nothing to do with early teaching of the Fathers.

Augustine never claimed that NFP was a form of contraception. What he condemned was the Manchean requirement that couples use a crude form of NFP to avoid conception.

He thought procreation is only excuse for intercourse, and since Manicheans practiced NFP, he concluded they are avoiding the only good thing in sex (and experience only bad things).

As for Augustine and the Church fathers, they are important, but they were neither inspired nor infallible.

I agree, but they can not be ignored or watered down when being reflected (as it is usually done in recent times). We usually speak of “constant teaching” regarding contraception and recall their sayings, but when these sayings are actually cited, it is obvious they had completely other system of values then us (and different conclusions regarding certain things, such as NFP).

St. John Chrysostom actually changed his mind on the matter, going from very negative to very positive over the course of his lifetime. He approved of naturally sterile intercourse (NFP), which made the couple “one flesh”, like “perfume mixing with ointment”.

If you are talking about sex between older people, then probably yes. However it is questionable whether St. Chrysostom would call a perfectly young and healthy woman sterile just because she has infertile period. And even more questionable is whether he would allow it’s “usage” to provide intercourse with lower chance of conception.

Also, Church after Chrysostom concentrated more on his negative side, and even today it tries hard to conceal such influences.

 

[waywardson]

And I said in simple English how it relates to original doctrine.

I have. It has nothing to do with early teaching of the Fathers.

I agree, but they can not be ignored or watered down when being reflected (as it is usually done in recent times). We usually speak of “constant teaching” regarding contraception and recall their sayings, but when these sayings are actually cited, it is obvious they had completely other system of values then us (and different conclusions regarding certain things, such as NFP).

If you are talking about sex between older people, then probably yes. However it is questionable whether St. Chrysostom would call a perfectly young and healthy woman sterile just because she has infertile period. And even more questionable is whether he would allow it’s “usage” to provide intercourse with lower chance of conception.

Also, Church after Chrysostom concentrated more on his negative side, and even today it tries hard to conceal such influences.

The western Church focused more on Augustine, the eastern on Chrysostom. This is one reason why the eastern Church has married priests, but this requires a dispensation in the west. Peter had a wife, Paul was glad to be single. Nothing new in the Church.

As for a young woman in the infertile period being sterile: She is obviously not sterile, the individual act on that day almost certainly is. Knowingly taking advantage of what God has generously provided is no sin.

The teachings are constant, but the reasoning behind them need not be. Chrysostom saw marital sex, even naturally infertile marital sex, as holy; Augustine saw it as a concession to prevent immorality. Scripture discusses both concepts, Augustine’s view is explicitly stated (1 Corinthians 7); Chrysostom’s view is heavily implied in multiple passages, including the entire Song of Songs. This different reasoning nevertheless leads to the same conclusion: Naturally infertile sex is licit.

Modern psychology strongly supports Chrysostom, and most married couples’ own experience does too, and that is what Fr. Karol Wojtyla (John Paul II) wrote about this from a modern perspective in his work Love and Responsibility. John Paul II follows Chrysostom quite closely. Putting too much emphasis on Augustine while forgetting Chrysostom is a mistake. So is the reverse, although this is less common.

It isn’t that Augustine is wrong, but his view of the value of sex in marriage is incomplete and he is easy to misunderstand. You yourself misunderstand Augustine as he allowed sex that would naturally not lead to conception as a concession to prevent immorality.

(Note that Augustine also had a long history of sexual immorality and came to celibacy, while Chrysostom lived a life of celibacy and came to appreciate marriage.)

 

[Chrono13]

The western Church focused more on Augustine, the eastern on Chrysostom. This is one reason why the eastern Church has married priests, but this requires a dispensation in the west. Peter had a wife, Paul was glad to be single. Nothing new in the Church.

You are avoiding the obvious- that Augustine was quite wrong on the subject, and that caused great frustration in the ranks of West. Not just in clerical, but in layman life as well.

As for a young woman in the infertile period being sterile: She is obviously not sterile, the individual act on that day almost certainly is. Knowingly taking advantage of what God has generously provided is no sin.

It is highly doubtful that any Church Father would consider such sterility God’s gift or subject of natural law.

The teachings are constant, but the reasoning behind them need not be.

Don’t be silly. Of course it has to.

Chrysostom saw marital sex, even naturally infertile marital sex, as holy; Augustine saw it as a concession to prevent immorality.

And we have concluded sex is good in theory, bad in practice, and sin in marriage.

Augustine’s view is explicitly stated (1 Corinthians 7);

Yes and no. Augustine concluded that words of the apostle “I tell this as permission” (1 Corinthians 7:6) means sex is bad in marriage, since good things don’t need permissions.

Modern psychology strongly supports Chrysostom,

We shouldn’t go that far. He never really went in psychological part of marriage and sexuality, and as already stated, it is questionable whether he would allow NFP.

It isn’t that Augustine is wrong, but his view of the value of sex in marriage is incomplete and he is easy to misunderstand. You yourself misunderstand Augustine as he allowed sex that would naturally not lead to conception as a concession to prevent immorality.

You can’t change Augustine, waywardson. He is all over the net and people can easily check his writings. Once he starts to bombard the heretics with his own stoicism, we will get a share too.

(Note that Augustine also had a long history of sexual immorality and came to celibacy, while Chrysostom lived a life of celibacy and came to appreciate marriage.)

Why would this make a difference? They both had issues with (different) sex, and I wonder why this happened.

 

[waywardson]

You are avoiding the obvious- that Augustine was quite wrong on the subject, and that caused great frustration in the ranks of West. Not just in clerical, but in layman life as well.

It is highly doubtful that any Church Father would consider such sterility God’s gift or subject of natural law.

Don’t be silly. Of course it has to.

And we have concluded sex is good in theory, bad in practice, and sin in marriage.

Yes and no. Augustine concluded that words of the apostle “I tell this as permission” (1 Corinthians 7:6) means sex is bad in marriage, since good things don’t need permissions.

We shouldn’t go that far. He never really went in psychological part of marriage and sexuality, and as already stated, it is questionable whether he would allow NFP.

You can’t change Augustine, waywardson. He is all over the net and people can easily check his writings. Once he starts to bombard the heretics with his own stoicism, we will get a share too.

Why would this make a difference? They both had issues with (different) sex, and I wonder why this happened.

It seems like you have your mind made up and no amount of posting from me or anyone else is going to change it.

The Church teaches what she teaches, Augustine is neither inspired nor infallible, he’s not the only Church father, Chrysostom held a very different view, and there really is no more to discuss.

 

[Chrono13]

It seems like you have your mind made up and no amount of posting from me or anyone else is going to change it.

The Church teaches what she teaches, Augustine is neither inspired nor infallible, he’s not the only Church father, Chrysostom held a very different view, and there really is no more to discuss.

Too many Catholics were forbidden to use NFP in the past for us to leave it at that.

You have said it yourself “the rationale behind the teaching has changed, not the teaching itself”. How can that be? Is that the path of genuie apostolic development?

And are we to say “We live as our fathers have” when we know that is not so?

And, just one additional note- it’s not my mind we are talking about. The truth can be accepted or boycotted, it won’t change. At one point, we must understand that what Fathers really thought on the subject is not a matter of personal opinion each of us might have, rather it is their own opinion which counts.

 

[waywardson]

Too many Catholics were forbidden to use NFP in the past for us to leave it at that.

If they were it was out of error. Plenty of priests and individual Catholics have made this error. Some still do.

An erroneous priest or theologian or even saint does not define Catholic teaching.

You have said it yourself “the rationale behind the teaching has changed, not the teaching itself”. How can that be? Is that the path of genuie apostolic development?

And are we to say “We live as our fathers have” when we know that is not so?

Here’s an example: The ancient Jews avoided pork because they believed it was unclean. We now know that they had good reason to avoid pork because of trichinosis and that ancient methods of cooking didn’t kill it all. Same teaching (no pork), different reasons (command of God vs. health reasons).

(Of course, with modern cooking methods, and Jesus’s pronunciation that uncleanliness does not come from food, we now know that God really wanted us to enjoy pork.)

Galileo made the Church rethink its explanation of the cosmos. He tried to provide his own, which the Church frowned upon.

And, just one additional note- it’s not my mind we are talking about. The truth can be accepted or boycotted, it won’t change. At one point, we must understand that what Fathers really thought on the subject is not a matter of personal opinion each of us might have, rather it is their own opinion which counts.

Do you think the Truth lies with your interpretation of the fathers or with the Church’s? If you believe in the Church’s, then there it is; if you believe in your own, then, follow it. Part of being Catholic is to have faith in God’s preservation of the Church and that sometimes they really do know more than you do.

I have been wrong enough times in my life to know to trust the Church. I have also misunderstood Church teaching enough to know that if I THINK the Church is wrong, then I should make sure that I know what the Church ACTUALLY teaches and the reasons behind it. The problem is always either with my own mistaken reasoning or my mistaken belief about Church teaching.

There can be no conflict between true faith and sound reasoning.

 

[kalbertone]

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,

It was condemned(usury) for any reason. There was no difference between charging moderate interest against a poor person who suffered misfortune & needed to borrow money,Bread or goods compared to a person farming a fertile land & making it profitable for both he himself & the party who lended him the $$$.

 

[kalbertone]

It seems like you have your mind made up and no amount of posting from me or anyone else is going to change it.

The Church teaches what she teaches, Augustine is neither inspired nor infallible, he’s not the only Church father, Chrysostom held a very different view, and there really is no more to discuss.

The fact the early church fathers followed Greek paganism in adressing sexuality & hailed the body & sexual relations in marriage with disgust disqualifies all of them as authority on sexuality.Today such attitudes would bring scandal to the church & grave embarrassment

 

[HOLY_POOH_FAN]

kalbertone:
Your understanding of infallibility is questionable. The Church as God’s Voice on Earth decided that Usury excessive interest charges is both morally evil. Interest charging is civilly and morally legitimate. The Vatican Bank, is badly named, it is the holding bank for all the religious orders of the world, not the place from which the pope pays his debts and deposits his cash. It pays and charges interest, and is not guilty of usury. Money has changed meaning over the centuries, and humans adjusted to it.
I have no idea who referred to canon law, but your calling the person who did is neither fair nor just. Canon Law contains both infallible teaching - for example the sacraments and implies others, the supreme authority of the Pope as Bishop of Rome, and some common sense rules and laws. Your distinction between the Pope not being infallible only God is nonsense. IF and WHEN he has consulted the whole Church, laity and hierarchy, and recognises a teaching has been true from the beginning he formally, with a special formula declares it infallible- canonising saints and deciding dogmatic teaching and moral conduct is. In practice, the teaching on NFP versus chemical and barrier birth prevention is considered morally accurate and binding even if not declared infallible as such. Loosen up and be more humble in your own fallible repetition of what INFALLIBILITY means. PEACE .

 

[ImmaculataFides]

If the OP is asking why do most “Catholics” ignore Church teaching and use artificial contraception, then the answer is one of the two:

• They’ve never been taught the teachings of the Church. Very common.
• They’re not Catholics.

 

[waywardson]

If the OP is asking why do most “Catholics” ignore Church teaching and use artificial contraception, then the answer is one of the two:

• They’ve never been taught the teachings of the Church. Very common.
• They’re not Catholics.

I would add one more.

1. They do not know that there is a very effective moral method of family planning.

Here is a quote from a “dissenting” Catholic in support of Melinda Gates’s contraception initiative.

I’m Catholic and had a hard time deciding to use contraceptives. I had abstained from sex all my life, preferring to wait for the one I would marry. I finally found him, my best friend. We decided together that we would use a combination of condoms and Pill to prevent pregnancy because we wanted to get married, start our careers, and bring our children into the world when we were emotionally and financially ready for them. I did feel guilty for using the Pill at first, but I also felt it was a necessity. I used the Pill for 4 years before stopping. We decided we wanted children. We’ve been trying for 6 months with no luck. Then I discovered the Fertility Awareness Method- different than the old-fashioned Rhythm Method. This FAM allowed me to understand what was going on in my body at different times of the month and I had an ‘Aha!’ moment. Now based on my waking temperature, cervix position, and cervical fluids, we can decide when we want to make love or not depending on whether we would like to conceive. Or not. No chemicals, barriers, or anything else unnatural involved. I wish I had known about this method so, so much sooner because then I would have been able to both know more about myself and my body! Empower yourself, women, and go read Taking Control of Your Fertility! @Jennifer, United States.

FAM is NFP taught from a secular context. (Condoms are optional in FAM, but it does not appear this couple is using them.)

Jennifer used the Pill because she felt it would not be responsible to have children when she first got married, but now is using NFP and she loves it. She wishes she had known about NFP earlier so that she would have never had to use the Pill, which damaged her body. So now, Jennifer is “defying” the Catholic Church to promote NFP. Epic Catechesis FAIL.

I think there are a lot of “dissenting” Catholics like Jennifer out there who don’t know the Church’s teachings and don’t know the science of NFP. I believe Melinda Gates is one of them herself.

 

[Chrono13]

If they were it was out of error. Plenty of priests and individual Catholics have made this error. Some still do.

An erroneous priest or theologian or even saint does not define Catholic teaching.

But I dare say, these things were not isolated cases. It was much more a policy Church had.

Here’s an example: The ancient Jews avoided pork because they believed it was unclean. We now know that they had good reason to avoid pork because of trichinosis and that ancient methods of cooking didn’t kill it all. Same teaching (no pork), different reasons (command of God vs. health reasons).

(Of course, with modern cooking methods, and Jesus’s pronunciation that uncleanliness does not come from food, we now know that God really wanted us to enjoy pork.)

Fragile.

Banning pork was of ritual nature, similar to forbidding people to wear clothes made by different materials. Jesus cleansed all the ritual filth from food.

Contraception was banned in the past because it was believed sex is bad (for various reasons, but ultimately, it was too pleasant not to be sinful). Yet, sex had to be practiced if species was to survive, and this narrowed it’s morality only to conception. Today, we talk about “being open to life” and we are quite agressive in claiming that this is what Church Fathers were teaching as well. Such conclusion is risky business.

Galileo made the Church rethink its explanation of the cosmos. He tried to provide his own, which the Church frowned upon.

Not just that. Catholics supporting his view were forbidden to attend the sacraments.

Do you think the Truth lies with your interpretation of the fathers or with the Church’s? If you believe in the Church’s, then there it is; if you believe in your own, then, follow it. Part of being Catholic is to have faith in God’s preservation of the Church and that sometimes they really do know more than you do.

I have been wrong enough times in my life to know to trust the Church. I have also misunderstood Church teaching enough to know that if I THINK the Church is wrong, then I should make sure that I know what the Church ACTUALLY teaches and the reasons behind it. The problem is always either with my own mistaken reasoning or my mistaken belief about Church teaching.

I have spent a lot of time researching the topic, and know pretty well what clergy teaches (today). If I am wrong, I will apologize.If I am right, I will promote truth, since God will never stand against it and I will surely follow His path defending it.

There can be no conflict between true faith and sound reasoning.

Of course. That’s why I have trouble accepting the clerical ideas about sex and contraception in Catholic historybook.

 

[Chrono13]

As for usury, there were ups and downs to it’s practice.

Generally, if one lends the money to the other, it is silly to ask more then originally given. This makes every coin recieved on that way sinful.

Church was not favoring it.