Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Moral Theology
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #271  
Old May 6, '12, 7:28 am
Chrono13 Chrono13 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2011
Posts: 454
Religion: Catholic searcher
Default Re: Why Do Most Catholics Ignore Humane Vitae?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrono13 View Post

He is the author of Humanae Vitae, there is nothing surprising here.
Sorry, I made a mistake here. I thought you were speaking about other Pope.

We can discuss what "serious reasons" are, and how they are practiced today, but even more, what Church Fathers thought of such ethical system.
  #272  
Old May 6, '12, 7:55 pm
Abu Abu is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: March 8, 2008
Posts: 4,672
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Why Do Most Catholics Ignore Humane Vitae?

Quote:
HOLY POOH FAN #264
you still do not understand the difference between declared infallible and what is to the accepted. Augustine gave us LIMBO, died in 431, BXV1 dropped it recently.
Such false “Catholics” never learn because they place their own selfist prejudices above Christ and His Church.

1) Real Catholics not only “accept” the doctrine as infallible they “assent” to it. As to who are real Catholics the Church is quite clear:
“By this appreciation, of the faith, aroused and sustained by the spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium), and obeying it, receive not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God (cf. 1 Th 2:13), the faith delivered once for all to the saints (cf. Jude 3).” [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 12, (Lumen Gentium), Vatican II, my emphasis]

2) Bringing in his confusion on Limbo merely detracts readers from the errors on the infallible condemnation of contraception. Sister Sarah Butler, a member of the Commission, has faithfully commented on this document at:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/znotionlimbo.htm
The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized. Benedict XVI approved it for publication.
Notion of Limbo Isn't Closed, Expert Says
Adds It's a Theological Opinion That Can Be Defended


Trying to raise theologians to the level of contradicting the Magisterium is the stock in trade of Chrono13 who, in his prejudices, can only try to deny the authority and infallibility conferred by the Son of God. He has set himself up against such giants as Msgr Cormac P Burke, the former Head of the Holy Roman Rota, the Church’s highest court, who shows how erroneous are the assumptions of this perennially confused one who has nothing to offer. Misrepresentation of St Augustine and other Fathers is the petard on which he is hoist.

Kalbertone rejects Christ conferring infallibility in faith and morals on His Supreme Vicars, when definitively teaching the whole Church.
As more bishops follow Timothy Cardinal Dolan in helping the confused to real faith so will the growing trend against abortion and contraception continue to progress.
  #273  
Old May 9, '12, 6:49 am
Chrono13 Chrono13 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2011
Posts: 454
Religion: Catholic searcher
Default Re: Why Do Most Catholics Ignore Humane Vitae?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abu View Post
Such false “Catholics” never learn because they place their own selfist prejudices above Christ and His Church.
Attempting to deny the value of one's arguments by forming them as if they are against Jesus or Mother Church is futile. I believe my points have been sharp, and supported by doctrinal and historical data you were not able to refute. I could easily proclaim you deny Apostolic Tradition when claiming NFP is in accordance with Natural Law (as seen by Fathers of the Church) but I find such rhetoric unproductive. You should too.


Quote:
1) Real Catholics not only “accept” the doctrine as infallible they “assent” to it. As to who are real Catholics the Church is quite clear:
“By this appreciation, of the faith, aroused and sustained by the spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium), and obeying it, receive not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God (cf. 1 Th 2:13), the faith delivered once for all to the saints (cf. Jude 3).” [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 12, (Lumen Gentium), Vatican II, my emphasis]
This text does not explain why Catholic layman were taught NFP is bad, or that their marital embrace is of sinful nature. Catholic can not obey avoiding the truth, since he can not choose between Catholic "historical tradition" and religious hierarchy. You can't ask faithful to pretend as if using female fertility cycle was unknown to Church Fathers, or not known up to 19th Century.

Quote:
2) Bringing in his confusion on Limbo merely detracts readers from the errors on the infallible condemnation of contraception. Sister Sarah Butler, a member of the Commission, has faithfully commented on this document at:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/znotionlimbo.htm
[b]The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized. Benedict XVI approved it for publication.
Notion of Limbo Isn't Closed, Expert Says
Adds It's a Theological Opinion That Can Be Defended
You are completely avoiding the point the other user made. He simply underlined that in the past, it was considered sinful/heretical to bury unbaptized infants with those which recieved the sacrament. Even the Mass was not allowed. This caused tremendous grief to the parents, and today things changed.

There are many similar examples. Pius X denied women to sing in choirs (that was in 1908. Some people of that time are still alive. )Vatican II changed that, without much fuss or explanation to women why this was so.

Quote:
Trying to raise theologians to the level of contradicting the Magisterium is the stock in trade of Chrono13 who, in his prejudices, can only try to deny the authority and infallibility conferred by the Son of God.
Do not trivialize this discussion. I have never supported such foul idea, neither gave a slightest inclination that I do.

Son of God does not counter the truth, for He is Truth Incarnate. Let us discover the Truth, and embrace it for Our Lord.

Quote:
He has set himself up against such giants as Msgr Cormac P Burke, the former Head of the Holy Roman Rota, the Church’s highest court, who shows how erroneous are the assumptions of this perennially confused one who has nothing to
offer.
I would counter much greater authority then him, when it comes to defending the truths about my faith.

If you are talking about this text:
http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages.../augustine.htm
Yes, I had my remarks. Burke extends the triple blessings of the marriage to sexual act of spouses. This was never done by Augustine, who claimed sex is "burden" and "weakness" of couple.

Quote:
Misrepresentation of St Augustine and other Fathers is the petard on which he is hoist.
People are more then welcome to read Augustine and other Church Fathers to correct me. It is highly doubtful that they will share your view after that, especially regarding your claims that NFP was unknow before modern era.
  #274  
Old May 9, '12, 1:10 pm
choose to love choose to love is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: March 13, 2007
Posts: 642
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Why Do Most Catholics Ignore Humane Vitae?

@chrono: would you please just admit that no Church Father ever addressed NBR/NFP in any other context than Augustine and the Manicheans? I do not recall ever seeing anything about birth regulation in any of the Church Father citations in your posts. I submit that it is solely your interpretation of various Church Fathers and what they have said about the purpose and nature of sex within marriage that you cite as support of your contention.

Second, I am not following at all your argument, which you seem to think is self-evident, as to why a "duty" on the part of the widow existed to report the shirking brother, and why this somehow invalidates the point raised by Harrison et al. that not having relations with the widow is only punishable by humiliation, whereas contracepting those relations merits death. Could you spell it out?
  #275  
Old May 9, '12, 3:49 pm
Abu Abu is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: March 8, 2008
Posts: 4,672
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Why Do Most Catholics Ignore Humane Vitae?

Abu, post #272:
“By this appreciation, of the faith, aroused and sustained by the spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium), and obeying it, receive not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God (cf. 1 Th 2:13), the faith delivered once for all to the saints (cf. Jude 3).” [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 12, (Lumen Gentium), Vatican II, my emphasis]
Quote:
Chrono13 #273
This text does not explain why Catholic layman were taught NFP is bad, or that their marital embrace is of sinful nature.
1) Chrono13’s error here, ad nauseam, is in assuming that the Magisterium has taught against NBR as sinful. He therefore continually denigrates the Magisterium and so denigrates the doctrine against contraception.

Abu, post #272
Trying to raise theologians to the level of contradicting the Magisterium is the stock in trade of Chrono13 who, in his prejudices, can only try to deny the authority and infallibility conferred by the Son of God.
Quote:
Do not trivialize this discussion. I have never supported such foul idea, neither gave a slightest inclination that I do.
He is even unable to see what has been crystal clear in all of his ranting against the doctrine condemning contraception.

2) The other error, ad nauseam, by some here in trying to deny the infallibility of the doctrine against contraception is evidence of the totally misplaced assumption by them that any doctrine which is not infallible need not be taken seriously and can be dissented from.

Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25:
“This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme Magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.”

Thus the third paragraph of Ad Tuendam Fidem, Bl John Paul II, 1998, states: “Moreover I adhere with submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.”(7) This paragraph has its corresponding legislative expression in canon 752 of the Code of Canon Law(8)

“Can. 752: Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.”

There has never been, and is no, “licit dissent” as Pope John Paul II has confirmed: “It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a ‘good Catholic’ and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of the bishops of the United States and elsewhere.” [Meeting with US Bishops at Our Lady Queen of Angels Minor Seminary, Los Angeles, Sept 16, 1987].
  #276  
Old May 9, '12, 4:25 pm
Chrono13 Chrono13 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2011
Posts: 454
Religion: Catholic searcher
Default Re: Why Do Most Catholics Ignore Humane Vitae?

Quote:
Originally Posted by choose to love View Post
@chrono: would you please just admit that no Church Father ever addressed NBR/NFP in any other context than Augustine and the Manicheans? I do not recall ever seeing anything about birth regulation in any of the Church Father citations in your posts. I submit that it is solely your interpretation of various Church Fathers and what they have said about the purpose and nature of sex within marriage that you cite as support of your contention.
I never said other Church Fathers addressed NFP/NBR, but noted they shared the same values as Augustine. Values which actually made St. Augustine reject NFP/NBR.

The idea was that sex is only for procreation, and can only be practiced morally with intent of procreation. Being open to life meant nothing to these great theologians, since you could have such intercourse with a prostitute, if you wanted. The "natural" intercourse was the one with legitimate wife, with as little sexual excitement as possible, but with rational decision to beget a child.

"We Christians marry only to produce children"
Justin Martyr

"Do you imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children? He who is too ardent a lover of his own wife is an adulterer."
Jerome

"If a man marries in order to have children, he ought not to have a sexual desire for his wife. He ought to produce children by a reverent, disciplined act of will."
St. Clement of Alexandria

"In Eden, it would have been possible to beget offspring without foul lust. The sexual organs would have been stimulated into necessary activity by will-power alone, just as the will controls other organs. ..So, the two sexes could have come together for impregnation and conception by an act of will, rather than by lustful cravings" .
St. Augustine

Every Church Father sharing this ethical system also shares ban of NFP since, even according to Humanae Vitae, couple does not desire begetting.

Quote:
Second, I am not following at all your argument, which you seem to think is self-evident, as to why a "duty" on the part of the widow existed to report the shirking brother, and why this somehow invalidates the point raised by Harrison et al. that not having relations with the widow is only punishable by humiliation, whereas contracepting those relations merits death. Could you spell it out?
Harrison finds argument in Deuteronomy,
However, if a man does not want to marry his brother's wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, "My husband's brother refuses to carry on his brother's name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me."
Deuteronomy 25:7

If contraception is sinful by itself, this alone would suffice for Tamar to do something about Onan. Yet, even after his death, she does not mention it to Judas and he thinks it's her fault.

But back to original point- if Onan had to produce a chid with Tamar, his coitus interruptus would certainly rise a few questionmarks over her head. She certainly would not just tolerate it (and that's what Fr. Harrison suggests).
  #277  
Old May 9, '12, 5:16 pm
Chrono13 Chrono13 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2011
Posts: 454
Religion: Catholic searcher
Default Re: Why Do Most Catholics Ignore Humane Vitae?

Quote:
1) Chrono13’s error here, ad nauseam, is in assuming that the Magisterium has taught against NBR as sinful. He therefore continually denigrates the Magisterium and so denigrates the doctrine against contraception.
I feel no nausea. I guess readers are fine too, judging from daily reads of this topic.

I gave solid proofs for my points, and if they stand, then I do not denigrate the Magisterium. How can truth fight the truth?

Quote:
He is even unable to see what has been crystal clear in all of his ranting against the doctrine condemning contraception.
"He" finds your rhetoric amusing from secular point of view, and unpius from religious one. But if you have to speak to me in that way, as if I am an item in the store, please do.
However your attempt to label me as some promoter of "theologist magisterium" makes me sad.

Quote:
2) The other error, ad nauseam, by some here in trying to deny the infallibility of the doctrine against contraception is evidence of the totally misplaced assumption by them that any doctrine which is not infallible need not be taken seriously and can be dissented from.
I really don't understand what you meant here. If you suggest that Catholic must obey doctrine even if it is not of infallible status, one must ask which doctrine you are referring to? So far you were doing your best to prove that contraception ban is infallible.

Quote:
Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25:
“This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme Magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.”
You can demand whatever you want from layman, apart from his history in the Catholic Church. You simply can't ask him to believe his ancestors could disagree with St. Augustine and belief sex is only for procreation.

And even if you can tell him to forget his own history, you would still have to provide answer to enemies of the Church- heretics, schismatics, fundamentalists. They do not have obligation to submit mind and will, and will demand simple answers on simple questions.

Some of them would say they have us right where they want us.
  #278  
Old May 10, '12, 2:58 am
kalbertone kalbertone is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: March 27, 2012
Posts: 149
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Why Do Most Catholics Ignore Humane Vitae?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abu View Post
Abu, post #272:
“By this appreciation, of the faith, aroused and sustained by the spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium), and obeying it, receive not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God (cf. 1 Th 2:13), the faith delivered once for all to the saints (cf. Jude 3).” [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 12, (Lumen Gentium), Vatican II, my emphasis]

1) Chrono13’s error here, ad nauseam, is in assuming that the Magisterium has taught against NBR as sinful. He therefore continually denigrates the Magisterium and so denigrates the doctrine against contraception.

Abu, post #272
Trying to raise theologians to the level of contradicting the Magisterium is the stock in trade of Chrono13 who, in his prejudices, can only try to deny the authority and infallibility conferred by the Son of God.
He is even unable to see what has been crystal clear in all of his ranting against the doctrine condemning contraception.

2) The other error, ad nauseam, by some here in trying to deny the infallibility of the doctrine against contraception is evidence of the totally misplaced assumption by them that any doctrine which is not infallible need not be taken seriously and can be dissented from.

Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25:
“This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme Magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.”

Thus the third paragraph of Ad Tuendam Fidem, Bl John Paul II, 1998, states: “Moreover I adhere with submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.”(7) This paragraph has its corresponding legislative expression in canon 752 of the Code of Canon Law(8)

“Can. 752: Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.”

There has never been, and is no, “licit dissent” as Pope John Paul II has confirmed: “It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a ‘good Catholic’ and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of the bishops of the United States and elsewhere.” [Meeting with US Bishops at Our Lady Queen of Angels Minor Seminary, Los Angeles, Sept 16, 1987].
  #279  
Old May 10, '12, 3:01 am
kalbertone kalbertone is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: March 27, 2012
Posts: 149
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Why Do Most Catholics Ignore Humane Vitae?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrono13 View Post
I never said other Church Fathers addressed NFP/NBR, but noted they shared the same values as Augustine. Values which actually made St. Augustine reject NFP/NBR.

The idea was that sex is only for procreation, and can only be practiced morally with intent of procreation. Being open to life meant nothing to these great theologians, since you could have such intercourse with a prostitute, if you wanted. The "natural" intercourse was the one with legitimate wife, with as little sexual excitement as possible, but with rational decision to beget a child.

"We Christians marry only to produce children"
Justin Martyr

"Do you imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children? He who is too ardent a lover of his own wife is an adulterer."
Jerome

"If a man marries in order to have children, he ought not to have a sexual desire for his wife. He ought to produce children by a reverent, disciplined act of will."
St. Clement of Alexandria

"In Eden, it would have been possible to beget offspring without foul lust. The sexual organs would have been stimulated into necessary activity by will-power alone, just as the will controls other organs. ..So, the two sexes could have come together for impregnation and conception by an act of will, rather than by lustful cravings" .
St. Augustine

Every Church Father sharing this ethical system also shares ban of NFP since, even according to Humanae Vitae, couple does not desire begetting.



Harrison finds argument in Deuteronomy,
However, if a man does not want to marry his brother's wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, "My husband's brother refuses to carry on his brother's name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me."
Deuteronomy 25:7

If contraception is sinful by itself, this alone would suffice for Tamar to do something about Onan. Yet, even after his death, she does not mention it to Judas and he thinks it's her fault.

But back to original point- if Onan had to produce a chid with Tamar, his coitus interruptus would certainly rise a few questionmarks over her head. She certainly would not just tolerate it (and that's what Fr. Harrison suggests).
  #280  
Old May 10, '12, 3:11 am
kalbertone kalbertone is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: March 27, 2012
Posts: 149
Religion: Catholic
Wink Re: Why Do Most Catholics Ignore Humane Vitae?

Vatican II was not allowed to debate contraception or celibacy(the pope took it out of the council^s hands fearing change). There is a excellent book on contraception by Noonan. Back in the 1800s France it states,France had a population explosion.The Bishops feared that withdrawal or coitus interruptus was being used to regulate/limit births.They went to the vatican to recieve counsel.What did Pope Leo XIII say ? "Don^t interfere with the consciences of couples". This has been documented & witnessed.It was never published in a encyclicle(which were non existant for the first 1,600 years of church history) but tht counsel was given. A lot of people in this forum are 1)ignorant of History 2)Don^t realize that Scripture or most Councils of the Church don^t mention this issue. You can quote Vatican II but it was not allowed to openly debate it.When a Bishop stood up in favour or re consideration to revise this teaching,he recieved a major round of applause at the assembly.This set off alarm bells in the Vatican(which alone IS NOT THE CHURCH) & Paul VI took it out of the council^s hands stating it has been sent to a comission looking into it
  #281  
Old May 10, '12, 3:49 am
HOLY POOH FAN HOLY POOH FAN is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2011
Posts: 124
Religion: CATHOLIC
Default Re: Why Do Most Catholics Ignore Humane Vitae?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abu View Post
Abu, post #272:
“By this appreciation, of the faith, aroused and sustained by the spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium), and obeying it, receive not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God (cf. 1 Th 2:13), the faith delivered once for all to the saints (cf. Jude 3).” [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 12, (Lumen Gentium), Vatican II, my emphasis]

1) Chrono13’s error here, ad nauseam, is in assuming that the Magisterium has taught against NBR as sinful. He therefore continually denigrates the Magisterium and so denigrates the doctrine against contraception.

Abu, post #272
Trying to raise theologians to the level of contradicting the Magisterium is the stock in trade of Chrono13 who, in his prejudices, can only try to deny the authority and infallibility conferred by the Son of God.
He is even unable to see what has been crystal clear in all of his ranting against the doctrine condemning contraception.

2) The other error, ad nauseam, by some here in trying to deny the infallibility of the doctrine against contraception is evidence of the totally misplaced assumption by them that any doctrine which is not infallible need not be taken seriously and can be dissented from.

Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25:
“This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme Magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.”

Thus the third paragraph of Ad Tuendam Fidem, Bl John Paul II, 1998, states: “Moreover I adhere with submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.”(7) This paragraph has its corresponding legislative expression in canon 752 of the Code of Canon Law(8)

“Can. 752: Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.”

There has never been, and is no, “licit dissent” as Pope John Paul II has confirmed: “It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a ‘good Catholic’ and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of the bishops of the United States and elsewhere.” [Meeting with US Bishops at Our Lady Queen of Angels Minor Seminary, Los Angeles, Sept 16, 1987].
=============
Our beloved Son Abu is indeed a faithful member of Our Body the Church of JC on Earth. He is however fallible, and subject to a reformation of opinion on the precise definition of infallible. The Holy Father who said there is no Limbo was speaking for the FAITH, there is no Limbo, never was. We have however designated one of Our mansions as LIMBAUGH in honour of Rush and those who see him as the Messiah for un-thinking Rightists on Earth. Given this day of whatever calendar you follow signed The Holy Trinity, witnessed by Peter, Our Eternal Gatekeeper. BTW We cannot wait for Mr Obama, Mr Biden and Ms Pelosi to get here!!! Hugs and CHILL Mr Abu. AMEN
  #282  
Old May 10, '12, 7:12 am
choose to love choose to love is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: March 13, 2007
Posts: 642
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Why Do Most Catholics Ignore Humane Vitae?

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

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

@kalbertone: can you provide some references for your claims so we are all on the same page? As an aside, why do you post whole-post quotations? Is your commentary in there and I am missing it?
  #283  
Old May 10, '12, 9:20 am
Chrono13 Chrono13 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2011
Posts: 454
Religion: Catholic searcher
Default Re: Why Do Most Catholics Ignore Humane Vitae?

Quote:
Originally Posted by choose to love View Post
@chrono, please! In post #273, you state: "Catholic layman were taught that NFP was badl", yet in your answer to me, you admit that no Church Father ever addressed NFP/NBR in context. How can both of those statements be true?
Church Father Augustine forbid NFP/NBR since procreation is "the only excuse for intercourse". This reveals his background- belief sex is only for procreation.

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

For example, when Clement writes:
"If a man marries in order to have children, he ought not to have a sexual desire for his wife. He ought to produce children by a reverent, disciplined act of will."
By default, this makes NFP unacceptable, since such act is preformed without will to produce children. And without this will, there is no concrete reason to have intercourse.

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

Quote:
You have consistently characterized your position as that of the Church, and it is not. Your opinion may be well supported, and you may find it convincing, but that does change that it is only your opinion.
I believe my position is pointing at fact outside of personal opinions. If clergy forbid layman to have sex for specific reasons, this is fact of Church history, and it would be so even if I would disagree.

Quote:
For example, your sentence in post #276 which begins "Every Church Father . . . " is your opinion, because no Church Father actually addressed the question of NBR's licitness. If they did not address it, the best you can have is an educated opinion/guess about what conclusion would have been reached.
Let's try it like this. How would you explain NFP to a person who thinks sex is only moral when done to beget a child?

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

Quote:
It seems to me that at least to some degree the point is that lust, i.e., using the other person as an object, is what the Fathers were condemning.
You are half right. It is true that Fathers were condemning lust. But lust was not observed in the way how you treat your woman, but how you treat procreation in intercourse.

To them, lust was anything involved in sex above desire to beget a child.
  #284  
Old May 10, '12, 10:52 am
Donna P's Avatar
Donna P Donna P is offline
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2004
Posts: 451
Religion: Catholic!!!
Default Re: Why Do Most Catholics Ignore Humane Vitae?

Quote:
Originally Posted by fnr View Post
I would like to broach this simple question. Is the problem with Catholics who ignore the teachings of the church on contraception, or with the teachings of the church?

One view of Catholic moral theology is that engaging in sexual intercourse with one's spouse while wearing a barrier has the net effect of "using" one's partner as a means to one's own gratification. Well, I'd suggest that whoever wrote that probably hasn't been in a position of trying to please one's partner in bed. It's not self-gratification, it's mutual love.

I'm one of those shames of the Catholic Church -- a divorced Catholic. But prior to that divorce, my ex-wife was advised by her doctors not to get pregnant again. I'm not going to divulge personal details, but suffice it to say that it was serious.

The loss of her ability to have more children was utterly devastating to my ex-wife. Did I think that I'd practice marital chastity, as my Church commands? Not for a second. To have her fertility taken out of her hands was a blow to her identity -- having her sexuality dry up would be another whip of the lash. I wanted to comfort her, to make her feel whole and loved again. And I did not obey the church.

Yes, there are methods of effective "natural family planning" -- which seem to me to be as natural as chewing a rough board. The "Calendar Days" approach is slip-shod effective. The thermometer approach? How natural is that? I know it works because it's the flip side of how you optimize fertility naturally when trying to GET pregnant. But seriously, is any of that any less "self-gratifying" than artificial contraception?

I'm the last to argue that there's not a downside to cheap and easy artificial contraception -- the "demographic winter" notion is a real one facing a lot of countries, including urban centers in places like Detroit and Cleveland. But I'm really unconvinced by a Theology of the Body that says that trying to bring pleasure to one's spouse (without getting her pregnant) is selfish.
God bless you and your ex-wife. These struggles are horrible. Should you get an annulment and ever re-marry, I hope you revisit Natural Family Planning. Check out the Couple to Couple league. NFP is easy and more effective than any artificial birth control.
__________________
God Bless!
CatholicWifeandMom

What we cannot do on our own,
God does for us when we pray.

  #285  
Old May 10, '12, 4:24 pm
Abu Abu is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: March 8, 2008
Posts: 4,672
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Why Do Most Catholics Ignore Humane Vitae?

Quote:
kalbertone #280
The Bishops feared that withdrawal or coitus interruptus was being used to regulate/limit births.They went to the vatican to recieve counsel.What did Pope Leo XIII say ? "Don^t interfere with the consciences of couples". This has been documented & witnessed.It was never published in a encyclicle(which were non existant for the first 1,600 years of church history) but tht counsel was given.[A lot of people in this forum are 1)ignorant of History
That ignorance is well displayed above, consistent with the other confused posters here in opposing Christ through His Church.

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

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

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

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

Likewise the other confused and misled posters who trash the Church’s teaching understand nothing of the:
1) History of contraception from the time of Onan whom God killed
2) Development of the knowledge of the cycles of fertility and NBR
3) Protestant acquiescence with the evil of contraception and the infallible doctrine against contraception by Pius XI in Casti Connubii in 1930
4) Fact of the demographic winter due to the calamity of contraception and the abortion holocaust throughout the world

Real Catholics understand that even non-infallible doctrine is the object of obedience of intellect and will, and that infallible doctrine requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be "firmly embraced and held".
Canon 750.2:
“Each and every proposition stated definitively by the Magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of the faith or morals, that is, each and every proposition required for the sacred preservation and faithful explanation of the same deposit of faith, must also be firmly embraced and maintained; anyone, therefore, who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church."

Thus do those who sneer and jeer oppose Christ and His Church.
Closed Thread

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Moral Theology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8481Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: SueZee
5154CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: UpUpAndAway
4429Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: daughterstm
4037OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: eschator83
3864SOLITUDE
Last by: Prairie Rose
3764Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: DesertSister62
3334Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel
3288Poems and Reflections
Last by: tonyg
3227Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: Rifester
3118For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: SueZee



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 3:29 am.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.