Habemus Papam

Originally posted by frogstomp
" If you don't play the game, you don't get to make the rules" John Tower on the Pope anti-birth control solution.

just paraphrasing and I hope I'm attributing that to the right Rebublican Senator

Oh, sod off!

From Paul VI's Evangelium Vitae:

"3. This new state of things gives rise to new questions. Granted the conditions of life today and taking into account the relevance of married love to the harmony and mutual fidelity of husband and wife, would it not be right to review the moral norms in force till now, especially when it is felt that these can be observed only with the gravest difficulty, sometimes only by heroic effort?"

Footnote 4 to EV, gives a listing of traditional Church documents on the nature of marriage, the correct use of conjugal rights and the duties of spouses:

Council of Trent Roman Catechism, Part II, ch. 8;
Leo XIII, encyc.letter Arcanum: Acta Leonis XIII, 2 (1880), 26-29;
Pius XI, encyc.letter Divini illius Magistri: AAS 22 (1930), 58-61; encyc. letter Casti connubii: AAS 22 (1930), 545-546;
Pius XII, Address to Italian Medico-Biological Union of St. Luke: Discorsi e radiomessaggi di Pio XII, VI, 191-192; to Italian Association of Catholic Midwives: AAS 43 (1951), 835-854; to the association known as the Family Campaign, and other family associations: AAS 43 (1951), 857-859; to 7th congress of International Society of Hematology: AAS 50 (1958), 734-735 [TPS VI, 394-395];
John XXIII, encyc.letter Mater et Magistra: AAS 53 (1961), 446-447 [TPS VII, 330-331];
Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today, nos. 47-52: AAS 58 (1966), 1067-1074 [TPS XI, 289-295];
Code of Canon Law, canons 1067, 1068 §1, canon 1076, §§1-2

Originally posted by lucifershammer
John XXIII*

The Papal Commission was formed to see if the traditional teaching of the Church could be changed in view of the circumstances of the 20th century, [b]not create new dogma around the question.[/b]

Doubletalk; how can something that is part of the "basic dogma" be even considered a candidate for change? Surely a commission wouldn't be formed to discuss the concept of the trinity! The fact that it was to be studied is strong evidence that the ban on artificial contraception was not "basic dogma" as you stated.

BTW, do you believe that there are 80 year old women physically capable of bearing children? If not (and they are not) aren't they "impotent" within the meaning of your ridiculous teaching? Isn't every married couple who has sex when the woman is past child bearing age committing a grave sin because the natural purpose of sex is procreation and if they cannot procreate, they are merely lustful? I'm amazed you cannot see the absurdity of this "dogma".

Originally posted by lucifershammer
From Paul VI's Evangelium Vitae:

"3. This new state of things gives rise to new questions. Granted the conditions of life today and taking into account the relevance of married love to the harmony and mutual fidelity of husband and wife, would it not be right to [b]review the moral norms in force till now, especially when it is ...[text shortened]... 1966), 1067-1074 [TPS XI, 289-295];
Code of Canon Law, canons 1067, 1068 §1, canon 1076, §§1-2[/b]

Humanae* vitae. Apologies. Evangelium Vitae was, of course, JPII's encyclical.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Doubletalk; how can something that is part of the "basic dogma" be even considered a candidate for change? Surely a commission wouldn't be formed to discuss the concept of the trinity! The fact that it was to be studied is strong evidence that the ban on artificial contraception was not "basic dogma" as you stated.

You're mixing up a number of questions here:

1. Is the teaching on contraception being immoral part of the traditional teaching of the Church?

Yes. This is the question I've been addressing in my citations.

2. Was this teaching taught and accepted throughout the Church?

Yes. That is what is meant by "ordinary Magisterium".

3. Was this teaching ever declared in a recognised agent of infallible declaration (like an ex cathedra declaration of the Pope or the teaching of an Ecumenical Council) prior to 1968?

No. There was no need to. The Church does not normally need to declare something infallibly until it is brought into serious question (e.g. even with the most basic teaching of the divinity of Christ, the Church did not feel the need to explicitly define it in a manner we now recognise as infallible till the Council of Nicea in the fourth century when Arianism was posing a threat to this doctrine). The Church teaching on contraception was never seriously questioned (even by the Protestant denominations) till mid-way through the 20th century.

4. Why was the Papal Commission on Birth Control formed by Pope John XXIII?

Due to various factors (growth of population, availability of contraceptives in the market etc.) there was growing pressure on the Church to reconsider its traditional (as yet not explicitly defined infallible) teaching on birth control. The Commission was consultative in nature and formed to answer the question of whether the Church teaching on contraception was part of basic dogma.

BTW, do you believe that there are 80 year old women physically capable of bearing children? If not (and they are not) aren't they "impotent" within the meaning of your ridiculous teaching?

You're confusing the concepts of "impotence" and "infertility". One is the inability to engage in the conjugal act itself; the other is the inability to conceive. One is an impediment to matrimonty; the other is not.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b/] Doubletalk; how can something that is part of the "basic dogma" be even considered a candidate for change? Surely a commission wouldn't be formed to discuss the concept of t ...[text shortened]... to conceive. One is an impediment to matrimonty; the other is not.

Lucifershammer: You're confusing the concepts of "impotence" and "infertility". One is the inability to engage in the conjugal act itself; the other is the inability to conceive. One is an impediment to matrimonty; the other is not

The confusion is in the Church's teachings; it believes that sex is for procreative purposes only and is otherwise "lustful". If need be I'll cite the 1968 encyclical where this is stated rather openly. Therefore, it makes no sense to say that artificial conception is a "grave sin" because it is sex for non-procreative purposes, if other sex for non-procreative purposes (i.e. between spouses who are physically unable to have children) is not a "grave sin". You have wiggled around the question long enough: IS SEX BETWEEN MARRIED COUPLES WHO ARE PHYSICALLY INCAPABLE OF HAVING CHILDREN A GRAVE SIN? If not, then sex for non-procreative purposes is allowed and it makes no sense to have a ban on artificial contraception (we'll ignore for a second that the Church permits NFB because there's a possibility it might fail when the same is true for artificial contraception). If it is, then the Church should logically not allow women past child bearing age to marry and they do. So which illogical and inconsistent position does the 20th Century Church take?

Whatever may or may not have been traditional Church teaching, you cannot deny that the Church in 1968 could have taken a different path. The ban on artificial contraception was not considered infallible dogma until then. Now it is apparently forever locked in stone because of the decisions of one man. If this doesn't show the weakness and foolishness of the Church's structure and doctrine of Papal Infallibility, nothing ever will.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The confusion is in the Church's teachings; it believes that sex is for procreative purposes only and is otherwise "lustful". If need be I'll cite the 1968 encyclical where this is stated rather openly.

Please. Humour me. Show me where the 1968 encyclical (or any other official Church document) states that:

1. Sex is for procreative purposes only
2. All instances of sex where procreation is out of the question is "lustful"

Originally posted by no1marauder
Therefore, it makes no sense to say that artificial conception is a "grave sin" because it is sex for non-procreative purposes, if other sex for non-procreative purposes (i.e. between spouses who are physically unable to have children) is not a "grave sin".

First of all, let's draw the distinction between the act of contraception* and the act of sex. Taking the pill, wearing a condom etc. are acts of the former. The Church makes this distinction clear in its teaching on contraception:

"Similarly excluded is any (LH: i.e. contraceptive) action, which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation - whether as an end or as a means" (HV 14).

It is not the sexual act that is sinful here, it is the act of contraception. In fact, it is the morally unlawful act of separating the procreative aspect of sex from its other aspects such as legitimacy in matrimony, fidelity and marital expression of love etc. that is sinful - which is why sterilization is also mentioned with contraception as sinful.

If you can appreciate that we are actually talking about two actions here, you will understand why the question below is absurd.

Originally posted by no1marauder
IS SEX BETWEEN MARRIED COUPLES WHO ARE PHYSICALLY INCAPABLE OF HAVING CHILDREN A GRAVE SIN?

No.

Originally posted by no1marauder
If not, then sex for non-procreative purposes is allowed and it makes no sense to have a ban on artificial contraception (we'll ignore for a second that the Church permits NFB because there's a possibility it might fail when the same is true for artificial contraception).

Of course sexual intercourse where the primary intent is something other than procreation is allowed. Pope Paul VI makes this clear himself in para. 16 of Humanae Vitae.

The Church permits NFP* not because of the possibility of failure, but because "it is exclusively in ... [this] case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable" (HV 16). In other words, the Church permits NFP because the couple is not committing the sinful act of separating the procreative aspect of sex from its other aspects. They are showing due respect to their marriage, the gift of the conjugal act (sex) and each other.

There is no logical contradiction in the Church's position of rejecting ABC as sinful while accepting NFP as legitimate.

Originally posted by no1marauder
If it is, then the Church should logically not allow women past child bearing age to marry and they do. So which illogical and inconsistent position does the 20th Century Church take?

See above.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Whatever may or may not have been traditional Church teaching, you cannot deny that the Church in 1968 could have taken a different path. The ban on artificial contraception was not considered infallible dogma until then. Now it is apparently forever locked in stone because of the decisions of one man.

You consider it the mistake of one man - that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. I consider it the Holy Spirit using Pope Paul VI's judgment to protect the Church from moral error.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b]The confusion is in the Church's teachings; it believes that sex is for procreative purposes only and is otherwise "lustful". If need be I'll cite the 1968 encyclical where this is stated rather openly.

Please. Humour me. Show me where the 1968 encyclical (or any other official Church document) s ...[text shortened]... nsider it the Holy Spirit using Pope Paul VI's judgment to protect the Church from moral error.[/b]

I had a quote last night, but will have to wade through the ridiculous document and find where it states that sex is for procreative purposes only; after all that is its "natural" purpose. I'll find it.

Regarding NFP you quoted this before:

NFP shows on the part of the couple an openness to the gift of life and demonstrates that children are the norm, rather than the exception, in marriage.

Now you say this:

In other words, the Church permits NFP because the couple is not committing the sinful act of separating the procreative aspect of sex from its other aspects.

Please, please explain how a couple physically incapable of having children are not "separating the procreative aspect of sex from its other aspects"? Please, please explain how they are showing "openness to the gift of life" when they know they cannot have children? Finally, is it permissable for a women to have a medical procedure that makes it so she will be unable to have children if by not having the procedure she was risking her life? Would she be permitted to have sex afterwards (not right away obviously) even though she selfishly "seperated the procreative aspect of sex from its other aspects"?

About 90% of Roman Catholics laugh at your statement that the 1968 encylical "protected the Church from moral error". But I know: the Holy Spirit only works in the Vatican, not in the hearts of the faithful. Some Churches never learn.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
NFP respects the language of the other’s body by viewing fertility as an essential element of what it means to be human. NFP shows on the part of the couple an openness to the gift of life and demonstrates that children are the norm, rather than the exception, in marriage.

...

Pope John Paul II recognizes that even NFP can be used in a selfish way with a "contraceptive mentality." Yet the practice of NFP, even for imperfect reasons, can lead one toward good. As Jesus has told us, "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free" (Jn 8:32). [/b]

If I and my wife, having had a child but still being fertile, choose only to have conjugal relations
during her infertile period because we feel that the good of our family, our state of health, our
means, &c, does not call for a child, would we be doing so in sin? We would be specifically doing
so in order to consummate the marriage through maritals, but with the deliberate intent of not
procreating. Is this sin?

If so, then this places an emphasis on procreation which makes it inextricable from sexual relations.

If not, then I fail to see the difference between so-called 'natural' contraception and 'articifical'
contraception. If a couple is generally opened towards having kids at some point and fully plan
to fulfill their charge to 'be fruitful and multiply' but (for the reasons above) feel that 'now' is not
the time, the 'contraceptive' mentality of NFP and ABC are indistinguishable: both provide a means
for having healthy, normal, marital non-procreative coitus.

Furthermore, if the rates of pregnancy between those using NFP and those using ABC (say, a
condom) are comparable, how is one more opened to pregnancy than the other? I fail to see
the difference between 'timing the cycle' incorrectly and the condom's breaking; both would be
'accidents.' I don't see how one could be 'sovereign' design while the other be simply an error.

At such times, NFP tells a couple when to avoid coming together in the marital embrace for the good of the marriage. During times such as this, they express their love in ways other than through the conjugal act.

In other words, when the woman's natural libido is at its highest, the couple should just hold hands?
Don't you recognize that this is misogynistic (I'm assuming that oral sex and mutual masturbation
are not permissible)?

Nemesio

The 1968 encylical states this regarding marriage:

As a consequence, husband and wife, through that mutual gift of themselves, which is specific and exclusive to them alone, develop that union of two persons in which they perfect one another, cooperating with God in the generation and rearing of new lives. paragraph 8

The introduction speaks of having children as the "fulfillment of a duty". It sure sounds to me that marriage and sex are only for procreative purposes, but I'm sure I'll find even more direct statements in other Church documents. You are being disingenous to deny that the Church's teaching is that the "natural" law purpose of sex is procreation. "The natural law purpose of sex is procreation". http://www.catholic.com/library/birth_control.asp - A Church approved document. Want more?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Please, please explain how a couple physically incapable of having children are not "separating the procreative aspect of sex from its other aspects"?

Simple - same way that a man who dies in an accident is not committing suicide. That the procreative aspect is impaired or disabled in the couple where one or both partners are naturally infertile imputes to them no moral culpability - they did not commit a sinful act with the intention of bringing about their current condition.

Please, please explain how they are showing "openness to the gift of life" when they know they cannot have children?

Once again, they are showing openness to the gift of life; how is it their fault if the gift is not destined to be / cannot naturally be theirs? Also, my statement was about couples practising NFP. Why would an infertile couple need to?

Finally, is it permissable for a women to have a medical procedure that makes it so she will be unable to have children if by not having the procedure she was risking her life? Would she be permitted to have sex afterwards (not right away obviously) even though she selfishly "seperated the procreative aspect of sex from its other aspects"?

Quite simply - yes and yes (C.f. HV 15). Since her intent was to save her life and not sterilize herself (which was unavoidable if the first was to be served), she has not committed any sin.

Originally posted by Nemesio
If I and my wife, having had a child but still being fertile, choose only to have conjugal relations
during her infertile period because we feel that the good of our family, our state of health, our
means, &c, does not call for a child, would we be doing so in sin? We would be specifically doing
so in order to consummate the marriage through maritals, but with the deliberate intent of not
procreating. Is this sin?

With respect to the sin of contraception/sterilization - no and no. I cannot say if you would be doing so with respect to the sin of lust and objectification of the other person.

If not, then I fail to see the difference between so-called 'natural' contraception and 'articifical'
contraception. If a couple is generally opened towards having kids at some point and fully plan
to fulfill their charge to 'be fruitful and multiply' but (for the reasons above) feel that 'now' is not
the time, the 'contraceptive' mentality of NFP and ABC are indistinguishable: both provide a means
for having healthy, normal, marital non-procreative coitus.

I've quoted Pope Paul VI on the difference in my response to no1 above.

Furthermore, if the rates of pregnancy between those using NFP and those using ABC (say, a
condom) are comparable, how is one more opened to pregnancy than the other? I fail to see
the difference between 'timing the cycle' incorrectly and the condom's breaking; both would be
'accidents.' I don't see how one could be 'sovereign' design while the other be simply an error.

Once again, see my response to no1. The Church support for NFP is not because it permits accidental pregnancy.

In other words, when the woman's natural libido is at its highest, the couple should just hold hands?
Don't you recognize that this is misogynistic (I'm assuming that oral sex and mutual masturbation
are not permissible)?

Misogyny is an excessive pathological hatred towards women. I recognise none of that here. Women who practise NFP cite several advantages - increased self-awareness and knowledge of their fertility, increased independence from costly or distant medical services, freedom from artificial substances and the side effects or potential medical risks of other methods, reduced re-supply costs associated with commodity-based methods, enhanced communication and intimacy (and this appears to be more important to many women than physical pleasure) etc. (http://www.irh.org/nfp.html)

Originally posted by no1marauder
The 1968 encylical states this regarding marriage:

As a consequence, husband and wife, through that mutual gift of themselves, which is specific and exclusive to them alone, develop that union of two persons in which they perfect one another, cooperating with God in the generation and rearing of new lives. paragraph 8

Now you're just fishing.

The introduction speaks of having children as the "fulfillment of a duty".

The whole sentence is, "The most serious duty of transmitting human life, in which married people collaborate freely and responsibly with God the Creator, has always been a source of great joy to them even though sometimes not without considerable difficulties and distress."

1. The natural inability to fulfill one's duty does not make one guilty of ignoring it. e.g. It is the duty of each citizen to contribute to the defence of their nation from external aggression, but citizens who are physically incapable of fulfilling their duty are not guilty of negligence.
2. The introduction makes it clear that there could be "difficulties" in the fulfillment of that duty.
3. In no way can one reasonably infer from this statement that procreation is the sole purpose of sexual intercourse.

It sure sounds to me that marriage and sex are only for procreative purposes, but I'm sure I'll find even more direct statements in other Church documents.

Please.

You are being disingenous to deny that the Church's teaching is that the "natural" law purpose of sex is procreation. "The natural law purpose of sex is procreation". http://www.catholic.com/library/birth_control.asp - A Church approved document. Want more?

When did I ever deny that the natural law purpose of sex is procreation? Please don't put words into my mouth (or keypad, as the case may be).

"X is the natural law purpose of Y" is not the same as "X is the sole purpose of Y and any other use is unlawful".

You made two very specific assertions in your original post and claimed to have citations from Humanae Vitae (don't worry - I'll take quotes from any official document of Church teaching) which supported those assertions. So far, you've showed me nothing to support those assertions.

Just to remind the reader, you asserted:

1. The Church believes that sex is for procreative purposes only
2. [Non-procreative sex] is otherwise "lustful".

So yes, more please.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b/] The 1968 encylical states this regarding marriage:

As a consequence, husband and wife, through that mutual gift of themselves, which is specific and exclusive to them alon ...[text shortened]... procreative sex] is otherwise "lustful".

So yes, more please.

The quote from the Humanae Vitae is not "fishing"; it states the purpose of marriage is "cooperating with God in the generation and rearing of young lives". Since sex is allowed only inside marriage and since the natural purpose of sex is procreation (RE the other Church approved document), please explain how I have not shown that sex is for procreative purposes only. That it may have ancillary benefits does not disprove that its purpose, in the Church's view, is solely for procreation.

Would a man who married a woman that he knew was infertile be guilty of the same grave sin as Onan ("spilling his seed"😉? Should he be put to death?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I've quoted Pope Paul VI on the difference in my response to no1 above.

My observation was: I fail to see the difference between NFP and ABC.

From Pope Paul VI:

In other words, the Church permits NFP because the couple is not committing the sinful act of separating the procreative aspect of sex from its other aspects. They are showing due respect to their marriage, the gift of the conjugal act (sex) and each other.

If a couple is having sex during the non-ovulating period, then they are trying to separate
themselves from the procreative aspect! That's the point of looking for the mucus; if you
see it, you know she's fertile -- stay away! Using NFP as contraception is contraception.
In my question above ('If I and my wife, having had a child but still being fertile, choose
only to have conjugal relations during her infertile period...'😉, I make it clear that we are
not interested in having a child -- we are using NFP as a means of preventing pregnancy.
It is contraception; it is an effort to separate procreation from conjugals by definition.

This is why I fail to see the difference, and I similarly fail to see how Pope Paul VI's comment
is relevant (because one is trying to separate conjugals from procreation, just like wearing a
condom is trying to separate them). And, given that the rate of incidental pregnancy is
comparable, I see them as comparable means of contraception.

Misogyny is an excessive pathological hatred towards women. I recognise none of that here. Women who practise NFP cite several advantages - increased self-awareness and knowledge of their fertility, increased independence from costly or distant medical services, freedom from artificial substances and the side effects or potential medical risks of other methods, reduced re-supply costs associated with commodity-based methods, enhanced communication and intimacy (and this appears to be more important to many women than physical pleasure) etc. (http://www.irh.org/nfp.html)

I feel that it is hateful to tell a woman that her libido isn't important in a healthy sexual relationship.

Several of these things are irrelevant; a woman can have increased self-awareness/knowledge
about her cycle or have enchanced communication and intimacy with any contraceptive structure
in place. Also, even if one uses contraception regularly, NFP can be used to help when a couple
wants to become pregnant. So, these claims, I feel, have no merit because they are
not a product of using NFP exclusively (they can occur in those who use ABC exclusively or both
methods) and we also do not know that women who use NFP exclusively feel these things in
a statistically higher % than those who do not.

The other claims seem redundant: 'increased independence from costly or distant medical services,
freedom from artificial substances and the side effects or potential medical risks of other methods,
reduced re-supply costs associated with commodity-based methods.'

All this says is freedom from the inconvenience of 'artificial' devices (whether it is time, memory,
money, or medical side effects). This is only valuable if there is a strain on a persons time,
mind, pocket, or person. If not, then a person would not feel more or less independent for they
do not find that they are losing by doing so.

Furthermore, there is a type of contraception which would alleviate all of these problems:
testicular heating. No barriers, no medicines, no expense. You soak your testicles in hot water for
10 minutes a day and in a few days you are sperm free. In a few weeks of not doing it, you will
be totally fertile again.

This would allow for a barrier-less and medication-less sexual life, one which can be responsive to
the respective libidos of both partners. Nothing could be more natural than this.

Nemesio