Skip to comments.Pope Paul VI and "Humanae Vitae": I told you so
Posted on 02/04/2012 7:57:07 PM PST by marshmallow
The image has spread rapidly around social media networks: It's a photo of Pope Paul VI, and in the likeness of those popular inspirational posters, includes the saying, "Humanae Vitae No. 17: I told you so."
It's a humorous but stark nod to a reality that Catholic Americans are facing today: a slow, but sure dissolution of freedom of religion, this time through forcing artificial contraception upon Catholic institutions.
In his 1968 encyclical "Humanae Vitae," Pope Paul VI waxed prophetic of the consequences of artificial contraception -- the same contraception that the current federal administration wants to force Catholic institutions to provide in health care plans. This mandate includes drugs that produce abortions, as well as sterilization procedures.
Here's what Pope Paul VI wrote about artificial birth control more than 40 years ago:
"Careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone."
Most Catholics have a pretty clear understanding that the Church teaches artificial contraception is an intrinsic evil -- yes, a sin. But many -- as evidenced through numerous studies that show a majority of Catholics still use contraception -- either don't fully understand or appreciate the Church's teaching.
Here are a few reasons why the Church teaches against contraceptives:
1. Marriage = Unity + Procreation
In "Humanae Vitae," Pope.......
(Excerpt) Read more at stlouisreview.com ...
I read the whole thing, great, thanks.
17. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beingsand especially the young, who are so exposed to temptationneed incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.
Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.
Limits to Man's Power
Consequently, unless we are willing that the responsibility of procreating life should be left to the arbitrary decision of men, we must accept that there are certain limits, beyond which it is wrong to go, to the power of man over his own body and its natural functionslimits, let it be said, which no one, whether as a private individual or as a public authority, can lawfully exceed. These limits are expressly imposed because of the reverence due to the whole human organism and its natural functions, in the light of the principles We stated earlier, and in accordance with a correct understanding of the "principle of totality" enunciated by Our predecessor Pope Pius XII. (21)
Though I appreciate the moralistic view, I do have a problem taking sexual and marital advice from a bunch of celibate priests. Was this the Satan’s ploy to take people with stronger than usual moralistic and theistic values and remove them from the gene pool?
Simply saying birth control is evil lacks any existential thinking.
On the other hand, why is it that the more technologically and moralistically advanced a society becomes, the lower the birthrate goes — as the least technologically and moralistically (at least by our measure) breed like mice.
It doesn’t take any leaps of intuition to figure out the ending to that story.
While the US of the late 1800s was technologically inferior to the US of today, I’m not as confident that the were morally less advanced...
What? You mean to say those sexting teens are not morally superior to those catholic farms girls that used to babysit me?
I was acquainted with a Roman Catholic monsignor who had been in the Dutch resistance in WWII. He told me once, “With birth control there is neither birth nor control.”
Birth control pills are putting toxins into a woman’s body. Toxins harm the body by causing all sorts of diseases, etc. They just had a “recall” on some birth control pills—why?—they don’t prevent pregnancy.
Great! Now, think of those babies that are conceived while the mother is putting this toxin into her body. Do you not think it harms the health of the baby if they decide to keep it? Me-—I would NOT want my baby in my uterus soaked with those toxins when it is at its most vulnerable stage of development. Birth control pills are nothing but evil! A toxin put into the human body to prevent normal functions always does some harm.
Moralistically advanced? You are wrong. I think we are as debased as the Weimar Republic was in 1919-—and as Rome at the fall. Debased, satanic cultures don’t reproduce-—they implode and die. They have child “sacrifice” and end up killing off the future. Immigration is what sustains them until they are overcome and morph into something else.
That is the best saying I have heard in a long time!
The toxins as you so suggest are a different matter altogether vis-a-vis birth control and the Catholic Church, which can however be extended to say Jehovah’s witnesses or Christian Scientists with regards to medicinal drugs and procedures as a whole.
The moral line between between birth control and abortion is quite clear at least to me, but then it is line anchored at both ends by people stuck on absolutes.
Again though back to the thought that taking sexual and marital advice from a celibate is counter intuitive.
though they may be right on certain things, it’s only serendipty rather than something you can attribute to wisdom and experience.
Back to the aside ... by relative time frames, we are like the Romans and the low birth rate western worlds will be swallowed by the high birth rate third world.
You impose inconsequential conditions on them that obviate, for you, their conclusions. That's handy. If a cop tells you not to rob a bank...
That's an ad hominem argument; almost a textbook case of one.
It might make a tiny, slim bit of sense if the "celibate" in question were making up something out of whole cloth. In this case, though, he's just reiterating for you what had been the constant teaching of the whole Christian community up until 1930. It doesn't take any special understanding of marriage to do that.
There are also plenty of married people who will tell you that artificial contraception is a bad thing. Does their opinion not count?
As opposed to what? The Halo argument?
It’s more like asking a lifetime vegatarian for a good roast recipe.
An ad hominem deals with a characteristic of the person. So if I said they’re fat so I don’t take sexual or marital advice from them, than that is a definitive ad hominem, also somewhat grayer is if I say that they believe in God, therefore I don’t trust their advice on sex and marriage, that is another ad Hominem.
But they are celibate. Meaning they vowed specificaly to not have sex or marriage. So, it addresses the point.
Therefore, no ad hominem.
It’s not inconsequential and creating a false analogy with a policeman and robbing banks is just tortured logic for contrarian sakes.
The fact is, it’s against the law to rob a bank. It’s not against the law to use birth control so that you can have sex (lets just keep it between husbands and wives) for pleasures sake without having a resulting child.
That is a theological doctrine — nonetheless the government shouldn’t be dictating to the church that it has to dispense birth control from it’s facilities.
You, no doubt, must then dismiss all of the teachings of Christ and St. Paul.
A priest is as capable as anyone else of understanding the human condition. Placing false requirements upon a reasoner that have nothing to do with Reason is, as I said, Handy.
Hardly. If your argument is that "don't contracept" is false because the messenger telling you that is celibate and therefore not to be trusted to teach you anything about marriage, my response is to present you with married people who say the same thing.
But to answer ... yes, it counts for them. Not me
And your response is to engage in solipsism. I guess you don't really want to address the content of what either of those groups of people actually say, you just want to dismiss them.
Sorry, I don’t follow your line of reasoning. A celibate priest has forsworn sex. What is he going to tell me that isn’t biased towards his beliefs?
Just like contraceptives and the Catholic Church. They don’t think we should use them — That’s what they are going to teach and that’s what they are going to espouse — if you excuse the pun.
The advise is the same that was given by the Apostles. It was not until the 19th century that morality was so totally identified with sexuality, caused the neuroses that Freud so accurately identified and so successfully treated. Never mind that his theory based on his experience of those times is false when universally applied. Pauls truth is more firmly based. Man is a reed, as Pascal says, but a thinking reed. Only he should be able to admit his mistakes. In this case, the celibate priest had the truth at his disposal and his critics, clerical and otherwise, hade only a half-truth at theirs.
Maybe it doesn’t count for you because you dont believe there is such a thing as truth in religion and morality. Catholics believe that the Church speaks the truth. You seem to be with Pilate, Truth, what is truth.? Then he gave the order to kill truth.
What is truth? then? Is there truth in religion?
Truth is either absolute or moralistic (relative).
I’m deist. I believe in the “watchmaker”.
You mean either objective or subjective? Deism is pretty broad a term. Newton, the idol of of the Enlightenment, was an Arian, which is why he never took Holy Orders.
However so we may try to be objective, it’s a futile effort that only results in relative truths.
Look at both sides of the Filioque schism as an example.
And beyond our experiences. I am not talking about ghosts and gobblins, and spirits manifest to the senses. But really, about man and his place in the universe.
“What is he going to tell me that isnt biased towards his beliefs?”
Putting aside the absurdity of the above question with respect to a Man of God, are you thinking of becoming a priest? And weren’t we talking about his fitness to prescribe and proscribe to his flock? Now he is “biased”? Like I said...’handy’.