Why Do Most Catholics Ignore Humane Vitae?

[Chrono13]

Within marriage, contraception contributes to this because buried in the act is the message "sex fundamentally has nothing to do with babies." This is a lie and lies damage relationships, even if the lie is one told by the body rather than the mouth. When the couple learns to discern fertility and avoids sexual contact during those times for serious reasons, the NATURE of their sexual encounter still revolves around the reality that sex and babies are both part of the one substance of human sexuality. See the difference? THAT is what the "natural" in NFP is about. It's not "natural" in the granola sense, but natural in the theological definition: "according to the nature of the thing in question."

This is shaky. It seems much more like a construction of an argument, then the argument itself.

Contraception, just as NFP, acknowledge that sex is connected with babies. That's the whole point why they are used, and why they were scoulded by Church Fathers.

[Ben F]

Back in the late seventies and early eighties, my wife and I faced this spiritual crisis. The doctor told us that another baby would be fatal to my wife. We were told to use the pill. In confession the Priest told my wife that God didn´t want her to be a rabbit. We in good conscience used the pill. Later she conceived again. We have a healthy 32 year old son now. God´s will......will be done, no matter what we decide. The doctors were wrong about her health and God knew best. We don´t have this problem anymore, but many do. Follow the Church, not this world. God bless

[aragonjohn1]

Humanae vitae was prophetic and perfectly describes the concequences until now.

[kalbertone]

Originally Posted by Ben F

Back in the late seventies and early eighties, my wife and I faced this spiritual crisis. The doctor told us that another baby would be fatal to my wife. We were told to use the pill. In confession the Priest told my wife that God didn´t want her to be a rabbit. We in good conscience used the pill. Later she conceived again. We have a healthy 32 year old son now. God´s will......will be done, no matter what we decide. The doctors were wrong about her health and God knew best. We don´t have this problem anymore, but many do. Follow the Church, not this world. God bless

I don^t see how this is anyway tied up to the morality of contraception when it comes to fostering conjugal love with responsible procreation. It is your Conscience that you must ultimately follow,always was & always will be.

[ahs]

Originally Posted by kalbertone

I don^t see how this is anyway tied up to the morality of contraception when it comes to fostering conjugal love with responsible procreation. It is your Conscience that you must ultimately follow,always was & always will be.

...a properly formed conscience...formed on the teachings of Christ, Truth handed down by Him to His Apostles, from His Apostles to us via Apstolic Succession/Tradition/His Church.

[Chrono13]

Originally Posted by ahs

...a properly formed conscience...formed on the teachings of Christ, Truth handed down by Him to His Apostles, from His Apostles to us via Apstolic Succession/Tradition/His Church.

And if this "tradition" hits the rock when people are to have sex only for procreation, what instrument of theology guards the layman?

[HOLY POOH FAN]

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

[Chrono13]

Originally Posted by HOLY POOH FAN

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

This is problematic. Are we really to accept the fact that "sex only for procreation" is authentic development of Christian thought? If so, were layman expected to obey this ethics? And if yes, why are people like Abu saying certain things never happened?

[kalbertone]

Originally Posted by ahs

...a properly formed conscience...formed on the teachings of Christ, Truth handed down by Him to His Apostles, from His Apostles to us via Apstolic Succession/Tradition/His Church.

Yes formed by the teachings of Christ,yes truth handed down by apostles.......oops theres a difference between infallible & non infallible. that^s why the church fathers at Vatican 1 worked overtime to secure strict qualifications when a pope is infallible because they knew of the screw ups & mistakes of popes in the past.Also infallibilty belongs to the Whole Church(Vatican Council II),mentioned also at Vatican 1 & also held as a constant tradition in the doctrines of Reception & Sense Of The Faithful

[GraceDK]

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

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

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

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

[choose to love]

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

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

[John of Woking]

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

[kalbertone]

Originally Posted by HOLY POOH FAN

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

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

[John of Woking]

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

[godisgood77]

Originally Posted by ahs

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

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

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

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

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

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