Pope Paul VI is on the minds of many Catholics these days, and for good reason.
For one, his (conciliar) “canonization” is set to take place in October; for another, there are reports out of Rome indicating that the Bergolgian regime is plotting to “re-interpret” Humanae Vitae – a text that is widely considered the “crowning achievement” of the Montini pontificate.
Even certain so-called “traditionalist” media outlets are sounding alarms about the disastrous consequences of tinkering with Humanae Vitae; speaking of the text as if it is tantamount to holy writ.
As we will demonstrate here, however, the text should be condemned as Humanae Vitae has done virtually nothing but contribute to the very problems that it sought to forestall:
Marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards … forgetfulness of the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reducing her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of a man’s own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection … the passing of power on to public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law and who will favor, and even impose, those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective. (cf Humanae Vitae – 17)
With this in mind, here we will undertake a timely and somewhat lengthy (though still limited) examination of Humanae Vitae; one that will reveal not only the document’s grave deficiencies, but also the degree to which its author lacked authentic Catholic conviction; revealing himself to be a weak, wavering, and pitiable character indeed.
Right from the outset, the fundamental error upon which the entire document is based is suggested:
The transmission of human life is a most serious role in which married people collaborate freely and responsibly with God the Creator.
Wrong. The transmission of human life (along with the education of children) is the primary end of marriage; not simply a most serious role among others.
Just sentences later, Paul VI states:
The fulfillment of this duty [the transmission of human life] has always posed problems to the conscience of married people, but the recent course of human society and the concomitant changes have provoked new questions. The Church cannot ignore these questions, for they concern matters intimately connected with the life and happiness of human beings.
First, notice that the wavering Paul VI now correctly identifies the transmission of human life as not just a role, but rather “a duty.”
Defenders of Montini often claim in the face of such things that he was a holy man, but simply soft-poken, timid and less-than-assertive.
NB: We are not discussing mere personality traits in this case; rather, we are considering the degree to which Paul VI upheld, or not, his primary duty of safeguarding the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine.
Already in our examination of Humanae Vitae, one is hard pressed to deny that Paul VI is very far from a model of heroic virtue.
Moving on, one should also take notice of his suggestion that the Church is motivated to address the so-called “new questions” at hand so that people can have happy lives!
Should not the motive have been for the glory of God and the salvation of souls?
Indeed, if it was, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
As we proceed with our examination, we will find that the focus of Paul VI, as with the Second Vatican Council itself, is almost entirely on man’s natural ends rather than his supernatural ends.
I would argue that a focus on the latter, however, is what provides the perspective necessary to assess the relative merits and deficiencies of one’s own generation in the full light of truth.
This missing from his view, one will not be surprised to find that Paul VI in Humanae Vitae (again, like the Council) cannot sing the praises of modern man enough – an over-glorification that leads him to falsely imagine that human society at the time that he wrote was utterly unique.
As for the “new questions,” as we shall see momentarily, these were settled long before Paul VI ever charged the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control to debate them.
Even so, he goes on:
The changes that have taken place are of considerable importance and varied in nature. In the first place there is the rapid increase in population which has made many fear that world population is going to grow faster than available resources, with the consequence that many families and developing countries would be faced with greater hardships.
A faithful Catholic (much more so a pope) should firmly dismiss the over-population myth out of hand, and for the simple reason that it accuses God of failing to provide the resources necessary for mankind to carry out the command to be fruitful and multiply.
And yet, Paul VI then states:
This can easily induce public authorities to be tempted to take even harsher measures to avert this danger.
By referring to overpopulation as “this danger,” Paul VI legitimized the myth.
There is also the fact that not only working and housing conditions but the greater demands made both in the economic and educational field pose a living situation in which it is frequently difficult these days to provide properly for a large family.
Notice the reference to “these days;” the clear implication being that it is uniquely difficult to provide for large families in our day (a falsehood), and further, that the signs of the times demand a re-examination of Christian doctrine.
Also noteworthy is a new understanding of the dignity of woman and her place in society, of the value of conjugal love in marriage and the relationship of conjugal acts to this love.
Nonsense. The Church (for whom Paul VI is speaking) did not come to any “new understanding” on these matters whatsoever. Rather, it is more accurate to say that society at large had recently come to a misunderstanding of the true dignity of woman.
“But the most remarkable development of all,” Paul VI states, is that man is “endeavoring to extend control … over the laws that regulate the transmission of life.”
This is hardly a “development;” rather, it is a clear act of rebellion against God that demanded a firm rebuke from the pope – no commission necessary.
He continues:
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?
Once again, we find Paul VI legitimizing invalid arguments that deserve nothing more than a firm rebuke; namely, the claim that the Divine Law is uniquely difficult to follow in our day. (Recall the reason – a failure to view the present situation from a supernatural perspective.)
In these opening paragraphs of the text, Paul VI poses various questions concerning “acts which render natural processes infertile.” He writes as if such matters had yet to be adequately addressed by the Church.
In reality, the Church had already spoken very clearly on this topic. The fact that new pharmacological methods were being invented to circumvent conception in no way changed the “questions” at hand; much less the answers.
A further question is whether, because people are more conscious today of their responsibilities, the time has not come when the transmission of life should be regulated by their intelligence and will rather than through the specific rhythms of their own bodies.
Setting aside for the present discussion the matter of regulating births via “the specific rhythms of their own bodies,” the premise upon which the “further question” is based is patently false.
People in the 1960s were no more conscious of their responsibilities than previous generations; in fact, a solid case can be made for the exact opposite.
Paul VI, however, lacking the heroic virtue to recognize, much less proclaim, this truth, lent credence to the false claim and thus added fuel to the flames of a controversy that had no basis in fact to begin with.
He continued:
This kind of question requires from the teaching authority of the Church a new and deeper reflection on the principles of the moral teaching on marriage—a teaching which is based on the natural law as illuminated and enriched by divine Revelation.
At this, Paul VI shows his lack of Catholic conviction once more as he now admits that the entire matter concerns the principles of the moral teaching, the natural law, and divine Revelation.
This being so, was it really necessary to assemble a commission of “experts” – including five women who had no medical credentials – in order for the Magisterium to figure out how to apply her authority to the proliferation of oral contraceptives?
Of course not.
Pope Pius XI had left no room for debate some three decades earlier in Casti Connubii:
Since, therefore, certain persons, manifestly departing from Christian tradition handed down from the beginning without interruption, have recently decided that another doctrine should be preached on this method of acting, the Catholic Church, to whom God himself has entrusted the teaching and the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, placed in the midst of this ruination of morals, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the marriage contract immune from this base sin, and in token of her divine mission raises high her voice through Our mouth proclaims and again proclaims: Any use of the marriage act, in the exercise of which it is designedly deprived of its natural power of procreating life, infringes on the law of God and of nature, and those who have committed any such act are stained with the guilt of serious sin. (Casti Connubii – 56)
Paul VI went on to state:
In carrying out this mandate [to interpret the natural moral law], the Church has always issued appropriate documents on the nature of marriage, the correct use of conjugal rights, and the duties of spouses. These documents have been more copious in recent times.
The footnote to this sentence even cites Casti Connubii (among other magisterial texts)! In other words, he is well aware of the previously cited teaching, and yet finds cause to re-examine the questions is so plainly settled.
Moving on, speaking of the opinions expressed by members of the Commission, Paul VI writes:
Certain approaches and criteria for a solution to this question had emerged which were at variance with the moral doctrine on marriage constantly taught by the magisterium of the Church.
In this, one may imagine that even Paul VI had come to recognize that the matter was not up for debate, but rather, was infallibly taught even prior to the formation of the Commission by virtue of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium.
But did he really?
Bear in mind that it was Paul VI who signed-off on each of the conciliar documents; texts that presumed not only to question, but to contradict that which had been constantly taught by the magisterium of the Church.
The point is this: Paul VI, like every pope that followed him, obviously did not accept the fact that such teachings are infallible and therefore not up for debate. Why not? Simply put, he was a dyed-in-the-wool modernist (which is precisely the qualification for conciliar “canonization”).
Several paragraphs later, the fundamental error previously noted surfaced yet again; this time a bit more plainly:
And since in the attempt to justify artificial methods of birth control many appeal to the demands of married love or of responsible parenthood, these two important realities of married life must be accurately defined and analyzed.
NB: In keeping with the Council – most notably Gaudium et Spes, which he will later cite specifically – Paul VI casts doubt on the ends of marriage; married love, first; parenthood, second.
He then tells us everything we need to know (Novus Ordo aside) about why he is being “canonized” as he states:
This is what We mean to do, with special reference to what the Second Vatican Council taught with the highest authority in its Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today.
Folks, nothing was taught by the Council, in particular in Gaudium et Spes, with the “highest authority” that the Church wields in the name of Christ. And yet, Paul VI – as all of the popes that followed him – treated this bastard of a council, which had no intention to define or bind, as if it is the highest of all authorities indeed! Truly, it is their “New Pentecost” – the birth of a new church.
Just a few paragraphs further, the fundamental error is put in plain view:
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.
Thanks to this disordered view of the ends of marriage – mutual gift, union, perfecting one another, first; the generation of new lives, second – which forms the foundation of the text, not surprisingly, the remainder of the document is rife with tortured arguments; in spite of containing any number of truths.
This, of course, renders the document condemnable as a whole; a point lost on neo-conservative, and even some self-identified traditional, thinkers. (Recall the warning issued in Sacred Scripture about “a little leaven…”)
Later in the text, Paul VI expounds upon what he calls “responsible parenthood” – a loaded phrase if ever there was one – as it concerns “those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.”
As stated previously, the NFP debate (which one can examine more closely in a 2016 post from Fr. Anthony – along with spirited commentary from readers) is beyond the scope of the present article. Even so, I would like to point out the following:
Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter.
This is incorrect; the sacred Magisterium is the true interpreter of the objective moral order, while a “right conscience” is one that is formed according to said teaching authority.
At this, we arrive at the quotes most often cited in defense of Paul VI’s legacy vis-à-vis Humanae Vitae:
The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.
This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.
By now, I’m sure you know what’s coming next, but before I say it once more, note that Paul VI is not yet finished misleading the faithful:
The fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman … And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved…
How many times must the ends of marriage be distorted in one text!
And now, what have we to show for all that Humanae Vitae has to offer?
More contraception – not less – and precisely the laundry list of problems that Paul VI (with the visionary prescience of a saint, according to some) associated with its proliferation.
You see, by so misleading the faithful into believing that the procreation and education of children has given way to “intimacy” and “unitive significance” as the primary end of marriage, this necessarily encouraged many (even if inadvertently) to take refuge in the false idea that avoiding pregnancy isn’t really such a big deal after all.
In fact, as the convoluted reasoning goes, if not having children serves the supposedly primary end of marriage, well then surely it is a good in and of itself!
And this, my friends, is the crowning achievement of the soon to be “canonized” Paul VI.
THANK YOU! Finally someone speaks the truth about Humanae Vitae! I am so sick of the neo-conservative/Novus Ordo “trad” asserting the false notion that Paul VI upheld traditional Catholic teaching in HV.
And when the be all and end all of marriage is unitive and “mutual enrichment,” it’s a hop skip and a jump to “love is love” glorification of sodomy.
Louie , I clearly remember at the time Humane Vitae was released that the secular and Catholic world was all abuzz and the reports were that a Polish cleric by the name of Woytola wrote 60% of the document .
sweep, it was my understanding that when Humane Vitae was release, a substantial number of Bishops chose to ignore or speak out against it. They had already made up their minds that birth control should be decided by the husband and wife. Because they were not corrected by the Pope (a very weak man), this empowered the Bishops to be “popes” in their own diocese. Am I mistaken about this. Thanks.
Actually it was Pope John XX111 who was said to be personally inclined to give the okay on birth control but he was advised not to. His response was something like “poor devils”, meaning the ignorant populace. This according to David Yallop who used to correspond with me in the early part of this century. Yallop was requested by five cardinals to investigate the sudden death of JP1. He interviewed quite a few people in the Vatican for his book. David Yallop was born and raised in a Traditional Irish Catholic family and sympathized with the promotion of birth control because he said he saw his mother struggling physically in poverty having had one baby after another with little or no help.
( I might remind you of what I said in a previous comment post about natural subsidiarity and the need to teach the Scriptural truth about love to both males and females and the impossibility to do this effectively as a sodomite cleric ) If according to Scripture the two are one flesh and man must love his wife’s body as his own. Common sense dictates there can be mutually agreed abstinence in marriage until one or the other regains their physical and mental strength.
‘TIME’ magazine did an in depth article on Humane Vitae and if I remember correctly, it was the featured cover story at the time. That is where I read about the Polish cleric named Woytola who was said to have written 60% of the document.
Apparently even then Opus Dei liked what he had to say on the topic of sex. His writings on the topic were later compiled into a series by an Opus Dei affiliated Theologian entitled, ‘Theology of the Body’ , infamously promoted by Christopher West and defended by the same originating Theologian among others. You might recall the sick and stupid secular analogies in the presentation . Personally, I trashed it after that and did not parse it for authentic Catholic anything.
I know of one DRE who was told to incorporate it into a her religious ed curricula for Catholic elementary grade students by the female SMOM Director of the Diocesan so called ,”Pro Life Office” . One quick read through and she also filed it in the circular file can.
Impotent teachers =
“For it is this (sodomy) which violates sobriety, kills modesty, slays chastity. It butchers virginity with the sword of a most filthy contagion. It befouls everything, it stains everything, it pollutes everything, and for itself it permits nothing pure, nothing foreign to filth, nothing clean.”
– St. Peter Damian ,”The Book of Gomorrah”
Sweep out the filth in your house first, dear Cardinals.
sweep–I read David Yallop’s excellent book about JPI. I also recommend Carl Bernstein and Marco Politi’s book “His Holiness JPII and the (Hidden) History of Our Time.” Read between the lines. JPII was obsessed with sex. He made it a practice to meet with young men and women on a regular basis where they discussed their sex lives. He also had a strange and long relationship with a woman (name escapes me now) who, in essence, introduced him to the world as “the next pope”. Like I always say, Truth is stranger than Fiction. Lord knows what we don’t know!
Here’s is info re that woman:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/15/pope-john-paul-ii-letters-reveal-32-year-relationship-with-woman
And here’s the other “Paolo”, co-writer of Humanae Vitae with Audrey Hepburn:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJ4ZU-FA5XA
And back in the day everyone knew it in real-time, including Lefebvre:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2519&dat=19760405&id=6G5eAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mmENAAAAIBAJ&pg=1676,395778
Yes 2 Cents I did read that and I think Randy read the book you mention above also.
What really was socking was his Bishop friend from Poland who stayed at the Vatican with him for awhile but was a rabid sodomite even digging a tunnel to get to young men in a Polish seminary after he was banned from visiting by he rector. JP2 was appealed to several times but refused to defrock that Bishop.
Remember the Vatican spin meisters making all kinds of excuses saying because he came from a communist country he knew their tactics using accusations against clerics of homosexuality to discredit them ?
That propaganda theory was blown out of the water when we later discover JP2 was behind the infamous Ratzinger CDF who refused other Bishop’s requests to remove pederast priests even here in the US. The serious serial pederast Kiesel comes to mind.
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/2010/04/10/world/europe/10pope.html
“But John S. Cummins, the former bishop of Oakland who repeatedly wrote his superiors in Rome urging that the priest be defrocked, said the Vatican in that era, after the Second Vatican Council, was especially reluctant to dismiss priests because so many were abandoning the priesthood.
As a result, he said, Pope John Paul II “really slowed down the process and made it much more deliberate.”
The letters and memos, released to The New York Times by Jeff Anderson, a co-counsel representing some of the priests’ victims, reveal a rising level of exasperation among church officials in Oakland about the delays from the Vatican. ”
Also more proof they knew that Vatican Council Two was destroying the Church !
typo…..”shocking” not ‘socking”
Then there’s this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeEkSJukLaw
One caveat to the mention of Michael Rose’s book in the above video link.
Rose claimed one good seminary that was left was St Charles Borromeo in Philadelphia .When I read that I laughed and threw the book up in the air having known many young men who entered and then left in disgust never to be seen in the parish pews again.
Bevilaqua retired into a “luxurious” apartment there and later died under suspicious circumstances. I say “suspicious” because he passed the night before the day he was due to testify for the Arch Diocesan Grand Jury investigating pederast abuse in the Diocese.
One news account reported his Hospice nurse was “right outside his door when he died”. Another, that she was by his bedside “holding his hand”. Having been a Hospice nurse I know comfort pacs full of standard Order medications for the terminally ill are on hand in the client’s refrigerator. Anyone in the household , including the client can access them. They include morphine( for pain and breathing problems during the actual dying process) , Haldol, ( for possible episodes of psychosis ) Tylenol ( for fever and discomfort ) Compazine suppositories.( for nausea and vomiting0 and Ativan ( for anxiety).
All have prescribed dosing information.
Interestingly , after Bevilaqua was deemed competent to testify he was seen on the golfing green. He did have cancer .his body was later exhumed because there must have been questions about toxicity after his death and burial. The court found he only had prescribed medications in his system. I am sure he did but in what dosages ?
Because he certainly could have had access to his own medications.After his death it was the duty of the Hospice nurse to destroy and record the amounts of medications that were left with another witness.
Later, the “seminary” was moved offsite to accommodate the declining enrollment and the property was up for sale.
https://www.nhregister.com/news/article/Prosecutors-want-to-exhume-body-of-Philadelphia-11533838.php
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/st-charles-borromeo-seminary-real-estate-fight-may-go-to-trial-20170614.html
Louie once again I can not thank you enough nor praise you enough for this stellar review. Finally, as the first commentator said, the truth about Humanae Vitae!
Thanks for the truth! I have had some pretty nasty arguments about the whole “responsible” thing. Neither the word nor the notion are anywhere to be seen in the Bible, but are favorites among the feminists and over-population crowd. Unless you are Bill Gates, you can use “responsible parenting” to justify having no children or 10 children, since it is left open-ended and entirely subjective. GRRRR!!!
I am surprised that there aren’t more responses to Louie’s blog entry? Is it because most of those who read this blog think Humanae Vitae is actually Catholic?
Dear Louie – I was overjoyed to see the topic of Humane Vitae introduced on your blog. Your posting and those of Sweepoutthefilth and others seemed fortuitous.
About five years ago, I completed a three-year study on the ill-fated John XXXIII/Paul VI – Population Control/Birth Control Commission. Unfortunately, I never wrote the text of the two-volume book-set due to years of continuous medical disorders and a series of operations. But God was merciful to me, healed my conditions and let me live long enough to continue writing. Just recently, a priest friend of mine reminded me that I needed to return to the Commission and Humanae Vitae and get the books done before God does take me. So, if you do not mind Louie and my aka friends, I’ll be finishing up my “Opus Dei WATCH” series in a few weeks, and then I’ll join you all for a wonderful and surprising and fruitful discussion on Humanae Vitae and the deadly Birth Control Commission. My columns, as will Louis’ will be timely as the 50th anniversary of the document is coming in August. Even today, the whole debate continues to be shrouded in mystery and myth. As with my Opus Dei WATCH series, perhaps “The TIme Has Come,” in the words of Dr. John Rock, to shed more light on the subject. Perhaps I’ll call it “Humanae Vitae WATCH. (smile) God bless, Randy Engel
Dear Randy,
You have made my day! Wow! We are not alone. What a blessing! What great news! God knows you have been in this fight on population control and contraception for many many decades. We need your experience. May God bless you with the health and strength to help us attack this beast.
My thoughts too.
Dear Randy, Thank God for your return to good health. I look forward to your next article. I hope this does not take you in a new direction. However, I often think that vaccines may be the cause of infertility and other population control agendas. If you have any thoughts on this it would be appreciated. Thank you again.
HV cannot be Catholic since its author was not Catholic.
2 Cents, I am amazed you just posted this thought regarding vaccines. I just sent Randy something that came to my email regarding little Alfie.
“”Alfie Evans was born healthy but after his
2 month shots started seizing. According to his auntie Vickie Evans,
they believe vaccines triggered his condition. There are suspicions that
the hospital is trying to cover up malpractice, and both hospital and
judge are desperately trying to kill him off before Alfie turns 2 on May”
Whether or not this posting is accurate I do not know as someone sent it to me from a Facebook pot. I do not have a Facebook.
What I find particularly horrific is the state stepping in and taking control away from parents as they have with the sex ed here.
Years ago Fr Paul Marx alerted the world to the vaccines that were supposed to be for tentanus which caused spontaneous miscarriages and infertility to the targeted population that were the recipients. ( I think it was Fillipino women). Shortly thereafter he was recalled to his Benedictine Order and had to leave HLI. Also, I was privileged to have been introduced to a leading Retrovirologist who was studying HIV. It is a man made virus . Period. When asked why they did it he replied that was not his focus , instead he was concentrating on transmission and a medical path to controlling it. Population control is vital to the NWO plan as is destruction of
fidelity to religious and national identity.
They did not name the New Mass the “New Order of the Mass” by pulling a name out of a hat.
Dear 2Vermont,
It’s “author”, as Giovanni Batista Montini, is not Catholic in the objective realm of reality as Truth, as the church which he adhered to is not the Catholic Church, as L.G. 16 denies the Apostles’ Creed, as it denies the very divinity of Jesus the Christ, and the Blessed Triune Godhead. L.G. 16 equates Allah with Almighty God, as utter Luciferian blasphemy. Period and end. Any church which denies God as Three divine Persons simply cannot be the Catholic Church. The church responsible for the creation and “solemn promulgation” of “Lumen Gentium”, is Lucifer’s church as it is fully and unutterably antichrist. Amen. Why would you possibly care what the “pope” of Lucifer’s church wrote, as so called, “Humanae Vitae”? Why would you play Lucifer’s game and get lost in his diabolical conundrum of, “he said, she said” in his church, as you will always lose when you play intellectively with the diabolical, as the true Church has always taught?
Anyone as “anyone” who holds the true Faith, simply rejects all of the “popes” since the death of Pope Pius XII, because those same “popes” reject the Catholic Faith, as they reject Her Credo, period and end. A few essays ago, Louie closed his piece with the correct warning, which was NEVER to reject object reality, while deceived into thinking that this can be done, and the conclusion of this rejection of objective reality, can somehow yield Catholic Truth. If objective reality is rejected in matters deFide, it will take every soul to Hell which dies with that same rejection freely held within the operation of their will. Amen. Again, this simply must be understood by a pious 12 year old in the state of grace to save his very soul. Amen. Alleluia. In caritas.
Dear sweep–It is inhuman to pump various vaccines at one time into these poor little bodies. I know of course that some of these vaccines are triggered by Big Pharma for greed. However, as I posted to Randy, I suspect the side effects are causing infertility. I spoke to a holistic doctor about vaccines. Although none of his children were vaccinated, he recommended no vaccines until age 2 and no multiple shots at one time. Spread out the ones that are advised by a trustworthy holistic practitioner.. Parents of young children, please do much research to protect your children, especially the ones for venereal diseases.
So first of all, Humanae Vitae IS Catholic.
Secondly, if the 10 people here, including the author, railing against NFP are living what they love to tell others to do, where are the 100 or so kids? Finally, why exactly are we wired to be attracted to people’s looks and personalities instead of just fertility? It’s a strange world where we are just Catholic baby makers and should be marrying solely for the purpose of producing more Catholics. That’s Hasidic Judaism, not Catholicism.
I agree with you. The reason why I care is because many Catholics look to his Humanae Vitae as orthodoxy. Very dangerous indeed.
No, the Catholic Church has always taught that the primary end of marriage is procreation.
Primary but not only. I’m sick of people with a couple of kids hair-splitting about how Catholic teaching doesn’t emphasize this enough, and making absurd statements about how NFP is somehow morally wrong or even in the same solar system as contraception. You do realize that unless you’re living the American Dream with a perfect home, happy life, and plenty of money with 10 kids and somehow doing it on a $60,000 salary, nobody is going to take your admonitions seriously, right? Stop obsessing about a very minor distinction like this and finding fault that isn’t there. You’re just alienating people and making the Catholic Church look like a cartoon version of itself at best, a cult at worst.
So it doesn’t matter that Catholic teaching is that procreation is the primary end. Not the only end, but the PRIMARY. In other words, the CHURCH thinks it is the most important end. People should listen to that because it is what THE CHURCH teaches.
Just because man is motivated often by other less loftier things than procreation when seeking a mate doesn’t make the truth on God’s purpose for creating conjugal intercourse from the onset of his plan to be procreation. Man’s motivation to enter into marriage does not negate God’s truth just because they are not lined up with Our Lord’s purpose. God was not motivated to create conjugal intercourse for the primary purpose of appeasing men and women’s sexual desires or even primarily for the unity and so called sanctification of the couple that the modernists wish to gargle on. Human’s do not need intercourse to be united with one another. Of course sexual unions are meant by God to have a very binding force and effect but this sexual effect of union is instilled there by God for the protection of the family especially for those who are most often the most vulnerable, women and children, and because of the grand mission of marriage,bringing souls into the world for God’s glory, is also meant to be a reflection of Christ giving His life the His ONE bride the Church so that souls may be with Him in Heaven.
Primary does not mean only. The Church has not defined how much more primary it is than mutual love and aid of spouses. By choosing to make one’s own distinction of degree, one is going way beyond anything the Church teaches.
How many children have you produced?
God has not blessed me with children Blunder even though I always remained open to it. Church teaching comes first and I never used artificial contraception nor NFP. Care to rail against me for my lack of children now smartypants?
Regardless, this isn’t about my fertility nor anyone else’s fertility. The point is that primary means first and foremost. I already said that it doesn’t mean “only”. And yes, the Church has made a distinction between mutual love and procreation because the former is merely the “secondary” end (i.e. second to procreation).
http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/social-teaching/moral-issues/93-social-teaching/moral-issues/342-roman-rota-on-the-ends-of-marriage.html
Regarding the traditional Catholic teaching re: primary and subordinate ends of marriage.
@2Vermont – it’s very good that you remained open to life. However, if you don’t have kids, you’re not in a position to lecture people who do about what having children means, pro or con. It actually is that simple. And nobody with children is going to listen to the admonitions to have more children from someone who has none.
That’s not a satisfactory explanation. While people are attracted to many different types, it’s based upon personality and appearance. I’m not saying that people are only attracted to people that society deems attractive – many people have types that society in general would consider unattractive by current standards. But aside from extreme groups and cultures where marriages are arranged, nobody is attracted to people because of their fertility (and even in those groups they’re not, it’s just forced upon them.) It doesn’t explain these natural inclinations to denigrate them as “less loftier.” There is nothing wrong with my wanting a spouse I find attractive, both physically and mentally regardless of whether they can have children. Denying it simply completely unrealistic unless you’re advocating for arranged marriage, which has never been part of Catholic tradition.
No, Blunderbuss. Those who won’t listen to me only use the fact that I have no kids as an excuse. Those that don’t listen to me really just don’t want to listen to the Church because all I am stating is what the Church teaches.
You also do not want to listen to what the Catholic Church teaches. You would rather make your post personal (i.e. focus on my infertility) than to have to deal with the Church teaching I laid out for you.
I’m sorry I don’t mean to make it personal. I don’t think anyone without kids, regardless of why, or people with only a couple of kids has a right to tell others to have lots of kids or to say that NFP is wrong. Where I’m objecting is the way this article and many of the commenters are taking a very fine distinction and twisting it into a fanatical obsession with having many children. Primary means that it’s an infinitesimally small degree more important than the secondary purpose. Or at least the Church hasn’t defined the degree. It’s the same as the absurd arguments that celibacy is somehow better than married life and that marrying is because you can’t handle celibacy, which is another thing I see a lot here. Sex isn’t bad or dirty and denigrating marriage and also saying that if you must get married you’re obligated to NOT practice NFP is fanatical and it seems like the loudest supporters are not exactly practicing what they preach. I hope that’s clearer and doesn’t sound personal.
To add to 2Vermont, the secondary purpose, unity , is SUBORDINATE to NOT separate from the primary purpose.The secondary purpose is there to service the primary purpose, procreation, and the secondary purpose, unity, must never be separated from procreation intentionally by either couple in thought, word or deed. This will destroy the integrity of the conjugal act and give carte blanche to ones conscience for impurity and the safeguarding of marriage, of men’s souls, women’s and children’s souls. Sacrificial complete abstinence is required. Prayer, the sacraments, and the cultivation of virtue are all at our disposal to carry this cross. Where are our Ctholics? Where are our heroes? Where are our saints?
To enter marriage for the primary motivation of anything other than the procreation of a soul is DEFINITELY a less loftier purpose than entering it for the procreation of souls because the creation of a soul is of far higher value to our Lord than someone’s sexual attraction to another person. To be attracted to your future spouse is not a sin, but it certainly is not above the creation of a soul. Please read the encyclical Casti Connubii PiusXI on Dec.31 1930. This was written the same year that the Protestant Lambeth council proclaimed that one could plan to have exclusive recourse to the infertile period In order to avoid having children.This encyclical was written, I beleive to counter this heresy.
“Sacrificial complete abstinence is required”? When? The Church has never, ever taught that that is the case.
People choose their spouses because they’re attracted to them physically and to their personalities. Not because they think they will produce children. Nobody chooses a spouse because of that.
Please read Casti Connubii.
Right. I’ve read it. No birth control. Nothing about NFP “frustrates the act”. What’s your point?
May put my 2 cents in on this discussion? The Church teaches that birth control is a sin even for loving, caring husbands and wives who may have multiple children. However, how many “catholic” clergy are living a gay life style without having to think about abstinence because their disordered act cannot produce a child. Seems hypocritical to me. Just a thought!
People who plan exclusively to have recourse to the infertile period in order to avoid having children ARE frustrating the marital. They are frustrating it in their outright plans! What is so hard to understand in that? If someone is infertile due to their age or through no fault of their own they are not thwarting the act and they are not contracepting when they choose to have conjugal relations because they are not planning to try to thwart it. Through NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN are they not conceiving.As long as they are NOT in thought, word or deed of the mindset to embrace the separation of procreation from the sex act and are in glee and desire absolutely with disdain that a child should come from it they are not contraceting. If a man can commit adultery by looking with lust at a woman then we must realise that YES INDEED willful thoughts matter and we must strugle against them. NFPers reject that thoughts and plans matter.
Did you even read my post that quote Scripture, Church fathers and saints that support this. You really need to reread Cati Connubii where it says this.
Blunderbuss,
Thank you. I do want to be clear (although I think I have already): my input here is only to point out that Humanae Vitae does not speak of the primary and secondary ends of marriage in accordance with Traditional Catholic teaching. Whether someone is married and/or has children is irrelevant to speaking the Catholic Truth. Many saints were neither.
As Louie has already shown, HV leads readers to believe that the unitive aspect is the primary end and therefore should not be the document that Catholics point to when trying to refute Francis’ heresies.
If you are truly interested in what the Church teaches, the link I provided above explains it very well. If not, then we have nothing more to say to each other in this thread.
Pius XII seriously set the faithful to be misled when he pronounced in his private letter to the midwives that one could for grave reasons have recourse to the infertile period only, in order to avoid conception. This teaching subordinates the primary purpose of marriage to the secondary purpose and clearly contradicts his own words in this same address that says-“…the truth that matrimony, as an institution of nature, in virtue of the Creator’s will, has not as a primary and intimate end the personal perfection of the married couple but the procreation and upbringing of new life. The other ends inasmuch as they are intended by nature, are not equally primary, much less superior to the primary end, but are essentially subordinated to it.” NFP subordinates the primary purpose of marriage to the secondary purpose when it calculates to have recourse to the infertile period only, in order to avoid having children while hopelessly trying to benefit from the effects of sexual intercourse that is meant by God to unite a couple for the sacred mission of procreation and education of children. This is how NFP is against moral law and Catholic Truth.
Pius XII seriously set the faithful to be misled when he pronounced in his private letter to the midwives that one could plan for grave reasons to have recourse to the infertile period exclusively, in order to avoid conception. This teaching subordinates the primary purpose of marriage to the secondary purpose and clearly contradicts his own words in this same address that says-“…the truth that matrimony, as an institution of nature, in virtue of the Creator’s will, has not as a primary and intimate end the personal perfection of the married couple but the procreation and upbringing of new life. THE OTHER ENDS INASMUCH AS THEY ARE INTENDED BY NATURE, ARE NOT EQUALLY PRIMARY, MUCH LESS SUPERIOR TO THE PRIMARY END, BUT ARE ESSENTIALLY SUBORDINATED TO IT ( my emphasis).” NFP subordinates the primary purpose of marriage to the secondary purpose when it calculates to have recourse to the infertile period only, in order to avoid having children while hopelessly trying to benefit from the effects of sexual intercourse that is meant by God to unite a couple for the sacred mission of procreation and education of children and not for the personal perfection of the married couple or for their insecurities on unity and bonding. This is how NFP is against moral law and Catholic Truth.
Finally here are some references that I promised you from Scripture, Tradition, Church Fathers, and the Magisterium that support the teachings of the primary purpose of marriage and defends against the heresy that says so called NFP is not contraception and therefore it is not a mortal sin.
Then the angel Raphael said to him [Tobias]: Hear me, and I will shew thee who they are, over whom the devil can prevail. For they who in such manner receive matrimony, as to shut out God from themselves, and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding, over them the devil hath power. & And when the third night is past, thou shalt take the virgin with the fear of the Lord, moved rather for love of children than for lust, that in the seed of Abraham thou mayest obtain a blessing in children& [Tobias said] And now, Lord, thou knowest, that not for fleshly lust do I take my sister to wife, BUT ONLY FOR THE LOVE OF POSTERITY ( my emphasis), in which Thy name may be blessed for ever and ever. †(Tobias 6:16-17, 22; 8:9)
†
Lactantius,†Divine Institutes,†6:23:18: God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital [‘generating’] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring.
Clement of Alexandria,†The Instructor of Children,†2:10:95:3: To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature.
St. Jerome,†Against Jovinian†1:19, A.D. 393: But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?
St. Augustine, Against Faustus, 22:30: For thus the eternal law, that is, the will of God creator of all creatures, taking counsel for the conservation of natural order, not to serve lust, but to see to the preservation of the race, permits the delight of mortal flesh to be released from the control of reason in copulation only to propagate progeny.
Pope Pius XI,†Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930: To take away from man the natural and primeval right of marriage, to circumscribe in any way the principal ends of marriage laid down in the beginning by God Himself in the words Increase and multiply, is beyond the power of any human law. & This is also expressed succinctly in the Code of Canon Law The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children .
1917 Code of Canon Law: Canon 1013. The primary purpose of marriage is the procreation and education of children. The secondary purpose is to furnish mutual aid and a remedy for concupiscence
It goes without saying that it is hypocritical . However I am trying to understand what point you are trying to make. Please correct me if I am wrong, but are you insinuating that because it is very clear that some of our clergy are sexually sinning even more gravely not only due to their sodomincal lifestyles but because of the graver scandal they cause due to their state in the priesthood that we should not care to encourage others, married or not, to holiness? Just asking.
This is from PiusXII’s letter to the Italian midwives. Quote
“Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic [i.e. concerns related to the health of the offspring], economic, and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory positive debt for a long period, or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint — and is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons, either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to the full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.”
This is the teachings of NFP although they back then did not use the term as of yet.I believe it was called the rhythm method. Like I say, a drop of heresy in a sea of truths does not make it right. I will post quotes from Scripture, the church fathers who all knew very well the teachings that said that one can NEVER separate the primary purpose of procreation from the secondary purpose of unity of the couple in ACT, WORD or DEED. And one can never subordinate the primary purpose to the secondary purpose. Please read Casti Conubii by Pope PiusXI. If a life is so incredibly at stake then COMPLETE abstinence is the only recourse.Why or why would one want to play Russian Roulette with NFP if a life were really at stake?
To separate the sex act from procreation was considered a perversion of the sex act back in the old days.This is from PiusXII’s letter to the Italian midwives. Quote
“Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic [i.e. concerns related to the health of the offspring], economic, and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory positive debt for a long period, or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint — and is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons, either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to the full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.”
This is the teachings of NFP although they back then did not use the term as of yet.I believe it was called the rhythm method. Like I say, a drop of heresy in a sea of truths does not make it right. I will post quotes from Scripture, the church fathers who all knew very well the teachings that said that one can NEVER separate the primary purpose of procreation from the secondary purpose of unity of the couple in ACT, WORD or DEED. And one can never subordinate the primary purpose to the secondary purpose. Please read Casti Conubii by Pope PiusXI. If a life is so incredibly at stake then COMPLETE abstinence is the only recourse.Why or why would one want to play Russian Roulette with NFP if a life were really at stake?
To separate the sex act from procreation was considered a perversion of the sex act back in the old days.
Thank you, Anastasia. No I’m not insinuating that at all. In light of what has been revealed regarding the “gay” priesthood (and even worse, pedophilia) it just seems like a “Don’t do as I do, just do as I say” attitude. Your asking me this, helps make my comment clearer.
God bless!
Good to know. Thanks. God bless.
Sorry I double copied the above post.
Anastasia, I would say Pius XII’s interpretation carries a bit more than yours.
Danger of death is not the criteria, nor is total abstinence the solution. If you or anyone else want to do more than is required – i.e., complete abstinence – that’s your or their choice. But don’t tell other people that they’re heretics or sinning if they don’t make the same choice. That’s wrong. And it’s not anyone’s place besides the couple’s to determine what constitutes serious reasons. That’s why the Church doesn’t specify. Some things, sure – “I want a gold-plated toilet” is not a serious reason, as normal person would agree. But aside from absurd, cartoonish examples, it becomes impossible for a person or the Church to spell out the thresholds, especially the health or psychological ones.
I do not usually agree with Blunder, but Anastasia’s reasoning can only lead to the conclusion that a couple MUST refrain from intercourse during infertile periods.
And Pius XII’s interpretation carries less weight than Scripture and the magisterium and many great saints and Church fathers that came before him that I just quoted above and that were unanimous on this.
Excuse me Anastasia, but Pius XII’s interpretation of scripture is the Magesterium. Why do we need a Pope is we can second guess him? You are falling into the same error that protestants are guilty of. Private interpretation. If Pius XII uttered heresy, then have the guts to call him a heretic and say that Pius XI was the last true Pope. If you can’t, then you MUST assent to papal teaching. If you think its a contradiction, then act accordingly and denounce Pius XII as a heretic. Not everyone here believes that Pius XII contradicted previous magesterial teaching. You seem to believe he did, so make the case that Pius XII also lost the Papal office. His Holy Week changes were ill advised also. But do not insinuate that Popes can contradict the magesterium. They cannot as that would defy logic itself.
Dear Tom A, Pope Pius XII was influenced by the Malthusians and the population control movement that was growing legs at that time. For sure, this philosophy had an effect on his thought process. I, myself, was shocked when reading his “Address to Midwives”. He expressed the hope that a natural means of limiting children would be found.
In an HLI newsletter twenty years ago, a medical doctor expressed his admiration for the fact that after ‘millions of years’, God had deigned to reveal NFP to the great unwashed. So, God keeps secrets, now, eh? Poor St. Catherine of Siena’s parents — they were not privy to the “Great Secret of NFP” and had twenty-two children, if I remember correctly.
The issue at hand is that at times in life a married couple may find it difficult to have another child. Those reasons are only defined as “grave.” That is an internal decision for the couple that will be judged by God alone. Since the Church permits this exception to being fruitful at all times, the question is by what method can the couple accompish their decision to postpone a pregnancy. Abstinence or refraining during the fertile periods? I do not believe the Church has ever ruled the latter as being a sin. Anastasia differs on that opinion.
I have sparred with Anastasia multiple times at this website. I believe her mistake is in holding that the use of periodic continence is intrinsically evil; that is, always and everywhere grave matter of mortal sin. But I would agree with her that it is not a virtuous practice, of itself.
Can anyone cite any Church Father or Magisterial authority, prior to Pope Pius XII, who gave permission for married couples to use abstinence directly for the purpose of preventing the conception of children? Marriage does not involve a norm to be fruitful at all times. Rather, it requires that married couples embrace marital chastity, which among other points, includes respect for the primary and hierarchical end of procreation. A direct intention against the conception of children, whether it be through illicit means (artificial contraception) or permissible means (such as periodic continence for grave reasons), necessarily militates against the procreative end of sexual intercourse and of marriage. This direct intention against the procreative end, I believe, renders periodic continence at least venially defective.
I would disagree with your point that the decision for the couple is internal alone. On the contrary, marriage is a public act with very public duties and responsibilities to multiple stakeholders, including: the Creator, potential grandparents, existing and future siblings, fellow young people, society, the Church, and mankind.
I always thought periodic continence was virtuous when consented by both, but the intent was not to avoid getting pregnant. For example, both practicing it as a form of self-denial.
Although I admit i am no expert on Pius XII’s letter to midwives, I think that Pius XII was focusing on “grave” reasons for those who abstained during the fertile periods. I highly doubt his “grave” reasons agree with the reasons so many couples use NFP.
I agree that abstinence can be virtuous for married couples when they abstain for reasons other than the direct prevention of children. The problem with periodic continence is that it is most often employed precisely for the purpose of preventing children. Hence, periodic continence does not frustrate individual acts of sexual intercourse, but it does frustrate the primary end of marriage.
Regarding Pope Pius XII, I personally wonder if he regretted the message he sent by granting permission (albeit limited permission) to use periodic continence. Towards the later years of his papacy I imagine he was already witnessing smaller Italian families. I read somewhere that pastors in Rome were complaining about smaller First Communion classes in the late 50’s. In 1958, Pope Pius XII wrote a beautiful and memorable letter to the Italian Association of Large Families.
We need a pope and bishops who will take a similar approach as this patriarch to the birth dearth:
https://twitter.com/LukeCoppen/status/989157161681989632
Of course, though, baptizing in the Roman Rite!
All due respect to all of you, but there is zero definition of “grave” cause promulgated by the Church. It’s not your place to step in and define it. As just one small example, there are places in the US where the public schools are unacceptable, the taxes are high, and a house in a safe area is extremely expensive. One parent has a job with no health insurance and the other needs to work because their job does offer insurance. How dare you criticize parents for being selfish or imply that it’s sinful for them to realize that they can’t afford additional kids because the decent Catholic and private schools in the area are also very expensive.
Pope Paul VI: “This is what We mean to do, with special reference to what THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL TAUGHT WITH THE HIGHEST AUTHORITY in its Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today.”
–
Mr. Verrecchio: “Folks, nothing was taught by the Council, in particular in Gaudium et Spes, with the “highest authority” that the Church wields in the name of Christ. And yet, Paul VI – as all of the popes that followed him – treated this bastard of a council, WHICH HAD NO INTENTION TO DEFINE OR BIND, AS IF IT IS THE HIGHEST OF ALL AUTHORITIES INDEED!”
–
COMMENT: I thank Mr. Verrecchio for allowing open discussion in the combox, as it provides an opportunity to correct these common sede-vacantist errors which have caused so much confusion in the Church.
–
The documents of Vatican II were indeed an act of “the highest authority” in the Church, as Pope Paul VI taught, even though the council intentionally “avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” There is no contradiction between these two statements, in spite of what sede-vacantists may think.
–
The error consists of equating an act of the Supreme Authority (“the highest authority”) with an “ex-cathedra” (and therefore infallible) teaching of the Pope. The two are not identical. An ex-cathedra teaching requires, in addition to the pope/Church using its supreme authority, the additional conditions of the intention to define a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church. An act of the Supreme Magisterium that does not include these additional intentions is not infallible, yet it is still an act of the Supreme Authority.
–
In his book, “The Church of Christ, An Apostolic and Dogmatic Treatise” (1955), Fr. E. Sylvester Berry expound on each condition for Papal Infallibility. Here is what he wrote about the necessity of teaching with supreme authority:
–
Fr. E. Sylvester Berry: “WITH SUPREME AUTHORITY: A definition of faith or morals is not infallible unless intended to be such, for the Pope acting as SUPREME PASTOR may issue decrees for the whole Church, and still not intend them to be definitive and irrevocable pronouncements on the matter treated. Hence the Council [First Vatican Council] says: ‘When, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine,’ i.e., when he uses his supreme authority, to give a final and irrevocable decision.” (pp. 271-2)
–
The Pope acting alone, or with the bishops at a council, can use his supreme authority without intending to define. Hence, there is no contradiction in saying Vatican II “HAD NO INTENTION TO DEFINE OR BIND” while at the same time saying it was an act of “THE HIGHEST OF ALL AUTHORITIES.”