FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Remembering the prophetic Humanae Vitae
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Humanae Vitae

This is worth rereading and considering just what has happened in the past 40 years and what the future looks to hold for life issues:

July 25th: The Anniversary of a Prophetic Encyclical


In our present world where the embracing of intrinsic evils, which are the compromises with the devil, are becoming more and more mainstream and even mandated, a courageous voice spoke out in 1968. He was publicly denounced for this even by some high ranking clergy. Society was warned but did not heed the warning and never has human life become so cheapened and the dignity of a human being so debased. The consequences of the embracing of moral evils has yet to be fully realized. God help us.

[Image: Pope+Paul+VI.jpg]

ENCYCLICAL LETTER
HUMANAE VITAE
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
PAUL VI

some excerpts from the Encyclical Letter which can be found at:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_v...ae_en.html

Honored Brothers and Dear Sons,
Health and Apostolic Benediction.

The transmission of human life is a most serious role in which married people collaborate freely and responsibly with God the Creator. It has always been a source of great joy to them, even though it sometimes entails many difficulties and hardships.

The fulfillment of this duty 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.


Faithfulness to God’s Design

13. Men rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one’s partner without regard to his or her condition or personal and reasonable wishes in the matter, is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife. If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source. “Human life is sacred?all men must recognize that fact,” Our predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled. “From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God.”

Consequences of Artificial Methods
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 beings?and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation?need 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.
—————-

Our present Holy Father, Benedict XVI, also mentions this encyclical in his new encyclical writing:

15. Two further documents by Paul VI without any direct link to social doctrine — the Encyclical Humanae Vitae (25 July 1968) and the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi (8 December 1975) — are highly important for delineating the fully human meaning of the development that the Church proposes. It is therefore helpful to consider these texts too in relation to Populorum Progressio.

The Encyclical Humanae Vitae emphasizes both the unitive and the procreative meaning of sexuality, thereby locating at the foundation of society the married couple, man and woman, who accept one another mutually, in distinction and in complementarity: a couple, therefore, that is open to life. This is not a question of purely individual morality: Humanae Vitae indicates the strong links between life ethics and social ethics, ushering in a new area of magisterial teaching that has gradually been articulated in a series of documents, most recently John Paul II’s Encyclical Evangelium Vitae.


If only....if only....if only he had been as prophetic when he was messing with the Mass.  God bless his soul.
I posted way back when, that a fine, older priest was explaining to a Protestant friend of mine the Catholic Church's 'stance' on artificial birth control.

He said that when he was a young seminarian, the HV encyclical came out. He had been to college before the seminary, and learned 'the ways of the world' and didn't see the big deal: "why the controversy," "why the uproar," "when will the Church come out of the medieval period?" etc. etc.

He voiced this to a (then) old priest. The old priest leaned back from the table (it was at dinner) and told this (then) young priest that it would start here. "Then," he continued, "you'll see abortion, and then euthanasia, and people won't even bother getting married. It's already happening a bit more than I've ever seen (divorce), and it's going to get much, much worse." The young priest scoffed at this, thinking he was playing a slippery slope a little too hard.  The old priest explained why the separation of procreation from the act of marital, sacramental love, would be so profound. I could go on, but it was pretty spooky hearing this priest tell this, because that old Father was so, so right on.

Needless to say, that young priest is an old(ish) priest now, and sees the truth of what that wise old priest said in the 60's.
(07-25-2009, 10:06 PM)Iuvenalis Wrote: [ -> ]I posted way back when, that a fine, older priest was explaining to a Protestant friend of mine the Catholic Church's 'stance' on artificial birth control.

He said that when he was a young seminarian, the HV encyclical came out. He had been to college before the seminary, and learned 'the ways of the world' and didn't see the big deal: "why the controversy," "why the uproar," "when will the Church come out of the medieval period?" etc. etc.

He voiced this to a (then) old priest. The old priest leaned back from the table (it was at dinner) and told this (then) young priest that it would start here. "Then," he continued, "you'll see abortion, and then euthanasia, and people won't even bother getting married. It's already happening a bit more than I've ever seen (divorce), and it's going to get much, much worse." The young priest scoffed at this, thinking he was playing a slippery slope a little too hard.  The old priest explained why the separation of procreation from the act of marital, sacramental love, would be so profound. I could go on, but it was pretty spooky hearing this priest tell this, because that old Father was so, so right on.

Needless to say, that young priest is an old(ish) priest now, and sees the truth of what that wise old priest said in the 60's.


The old priest may have been quoting Pope Pius XI.  At least I have read that when the Anglicans approved artificial contraception in the Thirties, the pope foretold that it was the start of a slippery slope that would lead to increased divorce and to acceptance of abortion, then to acceptance of euthanasia. 

Until the 1930s no mainstream denomination endorsed artificial contraception, now I think that they're all endorsing abortion and homosexual marriage.  And what church, besides the Catholic Church, has stood against legalization of assisted suicide?

ABC (along with Sterilization and Abortion) was already condemned in Casti Connubii...in 1930. Here are the relevant sections contained in Denzinger:


"Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma" Wrote:The Abuse of Matrimony *

[From the same Encyclical, "Casti Connubii," Dec. 31, 1930]

2239 Let us discuss the offspring, which some have the audacity to call the troublesome burden of marriage, and which they declare should be studiously avoided not by honorable continence ( permitted even in matrimony when both spouses consent), but by frustration of the natural act. Indeed, some vindicate themselves for this criminal abuse on the ground that they are tired of children and wish merely to fulfill their desires without the consequent burden; others on the ground that they can neither observe continence, nor because of difficulties of the mother or of family circumstances cannot have offspring.

But surely no reason, not even the gravest, can bring it about that what is intrinsically against nature becomes in accord with nature, and honorable. Since, moreover, the conjugal act by its very nature is destined for the generating of offspring, those who in the exercise of it deliberately deprive it of its natural force and power, act contrary to nature, and do something that is shameful and intrinsically bad.

Therefore, it is no wonder that Sacred Scripture itself testifies that the divine Majesty looks upon this nefarious crime with the greatest hatred, and sometimes has punished it with death, as St. Augustine relates: "It is illicit and disgraceful for one to lie even with his legitimate wife, when conception of offspring is prevented. Onan did this; God killed him therefore." *

2240 Since, therefore, certain persons, manifestly departing from Christian doctrine 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 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.

Therefore, We admonish the priests who devote time to hearing confessions, and others who have care of souls, in accord with Our highest authority, not to permit the faithful committed to them to err in this most serious law of God, and much more to keep themselves immune from false opinions of this kind, and not to connive in them in any way. If any confessor or pastor of souls, which may God forbid, either himself leads the faithful entrusted to him into these errors, or at least either by approval or by guilty silence confirms them in these errors, let him know that he must render a strict accounting to God, the Supreme Judge, for the betrayal of his trust, and let him consider the words of Christ as spoken to himself: "They are blind, and the leaders of the blind; and if the blind lead the blind, both fall jr/to the pit" [Matt. 15:14]. *

2241 Holy Church knows very well that not rarely one of the spouses is sinned against rather than commits a sin, when for a very grave reason he permits a perversion of the right order, which he himself does not wish; and on this account he is without fault, provided he then remembers the law of charity and does not neglect to prevent and deter the other from sinning. Those spouses are not to be said to act against the order of nature who use their right in a correct and natural way, although for natural reasons of time, or of certain defects new life cannot spring from this. For in matrimony itself, as in the practice of the conjugal right, secondary ends are also considered, such as mutual aid, the cultivation of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence, which spouses are by no means forbidden to attempt, provided the intrinsic nature of that act is preserved, and so its due ordering is towards its primary end. . . .

Every care must be taken lest the calamitous conditions of external affairs give occasion for a much more disastrous error. For no difficulties can arise which can nullify the obligation of the mandates of God which forbid acts that are evil from their interior nature; but in all collateral circumstances spouses, strengthened by the grace of God, can always perform their duty faithfully, and preserve their chastity in marriage untainted by this shameful stain; for the truth of the Christian faith stands expressed in the teaching of the Synod of Trent: "Let no one rashly assert that which the Fathers of the Council have placed under anathema, namely, that there are precepts of God impossible for the just to observe. God does not ask the impossible, but by His commands instructs you to do what you are able, to pray for what you are not able, and assists you that you may be able" [see n. 804]. This same doctrine was again solemnly repeated and confirmed in the condemnation of the Jansenist heresy, which dared to utter this blasphemy against the goodness of God: "Some precepts of God are impossible of fulfillment, even for just men who wish and strive to keep the laws according to the powers which they have; grace also is lacking to them which would render this possible" [see n. 1092].

The Killing of the Foetus *

[From the same Encyclical, "Casti Connubii," Dec. 31, 1930]

2242 Another very grave crime is also to be noted, by which the life of the offspring hidden in the mother's womb is attempted. Moreover, some wish this to be permitted according to the pleasure of the mother or father; others, however, call it illicit unless very grave reasons attend, which they call by the name of medical, social, eugenic "indication." Since this pertains to the penal laws of the state, according to which the destruction of the offspring begotten but not yet born is prohibited, all of these demand that the "indication," which they defend individually in one way or another, be recognized even by the public laws, and be declared free of all punishment. Nay rather, there are not lacking those who demand that public magistrates lend a helping hand to these deathdealing operations, something which unfortunately we all know is taking place very frequently in some places.

2243 Now as for the medical and therapeutic "indication," to use their words, We have already said, Venerable Brethren, how sorry We are for the mother, whose health and even life are threatened by grave dangers resulting from nature's duty; but what reason can ever be strong enough to excuse in any way the direct murder of the innocent? For this is the case in point here. Whether this is brought upon the mother or the offspring, it is contrary to God's precept and the voice of nature: "Thou shalt not kill!" [Exod. 20:13]. * The life of each person is an equally sacred thing, and no one can ever have the power, not even public authority to destroy it. Consequently, it is most unjust to invoke the "right of the sword" against the innocent since this is valid against the guilty alone; nor is there any right in this case of a bloody defense against an unjust aggressor (for who will call an innocent child an unjust aggressor?); nor is there present any "right of extreme necessity," as it is called, which can extend even to the direct killing of the innocent. Therefore, honorable and experienced physicians praiseworthily endeavor to protect and to save the lives of both the mother and the offspring; on the other hand, most unworthy of the noble name of physician and of commendation would they prove themselves, as many as plan for the death of one or the other under the appearance of practicing medicine or through motives of false pity. . . .

2244 Now what is put forth in behalf of social and eugenic indication, with licit and honorable means and within due limits, may and ought to be held as a solution for these matters; but because of the necessities upon which these problems rest, to seek to procure the death of the innocent is improper and contrary to the divine precept promulgated by the words of the Apostle: "Evil is not to be done that good may come of it" [Rom. 3:8].

Finally, those who hold high office among nations and pass laws may not forget that it belongs to public authority by appropriate laws and penalties to defend the lives of the innocent, and the more so as those whose lives are endangered and are attacked are less able to defend themselves, among whom surely infants in their mothers' wombs hold first place. But if public magistrates not only do not protect those little ones, but by their laws and ordinances permit this, and thus give them over to the hands of physicians and others to be killed, let them remember that God is the judge and the avenger of innocent "blood which cries from earth to heaven" [Gen. 4:10].

The Right to Marriage, and Sterilization *

[From the same Encyclical, "Casti Connubii," Dec. 31, 1930]

2245 Finally, that pernicious practice should be condemned which is closely related to the natural right of man to enter into matrimony, and also in a real way pertains to the good of the offspring. For there are those who, overly solicitous about the ends of eugenics, not only give certain salutary counsels for more certainly procuring the health and vigor of the future offspring---which certainly is not contrary to right reason---but also place eugenics before every other end of a higher order; and by public authority wish to prohibit from marriage all those from whom, according to the norms and conjectures of their science, they think that a defective and corrupt offspring will be generated because of hereditary transmission, even if these same persons are naturally fitted for entering upon matrimony. Why, they even wish such persons even against their will to be deprived by law of that natural faculty through the operation of physicians; and this they propose not as a severe penalty for a crime committed, to be sought by public authority, nor to ward off future crimes of the guilt, * but, contrary to every right and claim, by arrogating this power to the civil magistrates, which they never had and can never have legitimately.

Whoever so act completely forget that the family is more sacred than the state, and that men are generated primarily not for earth and for time, but for heaven and eternity. And, surely, it is not right that men, in other respects capable of matrimony, who according to conjecture, though every care and diligence be applied, will generate only defective offspring, be for this reason burdened with a serious sin if they contract marriage, although sometimes they ought to be dissuaded from matrimony.

2246 In fact, public magistrates have no direct power over the bodies of their subjects; therefore, they can never directly do harm to, or in any way affect the integrity of the body, where no crime has taken place, and no cause for serious punishment is at hand, either for reasons of eugenics, or any other purpose. St. Thomas Aquinas taught the same, when, inquiring whether human judges have the power to inflict some evil on man to ward off future evils, concedes this to be correct with reference to certain other evils, but rightly and worthily denies it with regard to injuring the body: "Never ought anyone, according to human judgment, to be punished when without guilt, by a penalty of flogging to death, or of mutilation, or of beating." *

Christian doctrine has established this, and by the light of human reason it is quite clear that private individuals have no other power over the members of their bodies, and cannot destroy or mutilate them, or in any other way render them unfitted for natural functions, except when the good of the whole body cannot otherwise be provided for.

Remember that Paul VI let a theological commission "study" ABC for 5 years before Humanae Vitae. In 1930, Casti Connubii explicitly condemned in principle any form of ABC, as well as abortion. The question "when does life begin" is irrelevant, as ABORTION was condemned.

Paul VI confused things by his actions and also confused the tradition ends of marriage in Humanae Vitae.
(07-26-2009, 05:29 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: [ -> ]Remember that Paul VI let a theological commission "study" ABC for 5 years before Humanae Vitae. In 1930, Casti Connubii explicitly condemned in principle any form of ABC, as well as abortion. The question "when does life begin" is irrelevant, as ABORTION was condemned.

Paul VI confused things by his actions and also confused the tradition ends of marriage in Humanae Vitae.

As a matter of fact it was John XXIII who took the question out of the consideration of the Council, and ordered the Commission.

The commission considered the fact that until about the end of the XIX Century every drop of sperm was necessary to keep the humanity alive, otherwise the high level of child and birth mortality would endanger the procreation. In the XX Century this essentially changed and the population increased form 1.6 to 6 billion. In 1930 thei was not seen, but in 1960 this was significant issue, and from Catholic point of view still unresolved problem.

Just think over the hypocrisy: those who support not the abortion, but the law that as God not prevent the abortion, neither state laws should forcibly forbid it, should not receive the sacrament; but those who support the most preferred status for China with her forced abortion law, ordering to kill tens of millions of unborn fetuses each year, could be good standing Catholics. The sound balance is lost somewhere.

laszlo
(07-26-2009, 08:04 PM)glgas Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-26-2009, 05:29 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: [ -> ]Remember that Paul VI let a theological commission "study" ABC for 5 years before Humanae Vitae. In 1930, Casti Connubii explicitly condemned in principle any form of ABC, as well as abortion. The question "when does life begin" is irrelevant, as ABORTION was condemned.

Paul VI confused things by his actions and also confused the tradition ends of marriage in Humanae Vitae.

As a matter of fact it was John XXIII who took the question out of the consideration of the Council, and ordered the Commission.
And John XXIII died in 1963. Paul VI continued the commission.

Quote:The commission considered the fact that until about the end of the XIX Century every drop of sperm was necessary to keep the humanity alive, otherwise the high level of child and birth mortality would endanger the procreation. In the XX Century this essentially changed and the population increased form 1.6 to 6 billion. In 1930 thei was not seen, but in 1960 this was significant issue, and from Catholic point of view still unresolved problem.
Did you even read the sections of Casti Connubii quoted above? The Catholic PRINCIPLES laid down by Pius XI are based in the Natural Law and the "considerations" above utilitarian in nature and definitely not concerns that would influence Catholic doctrine on this issue.

Quote:Just think over the hypocrisy: those who support not the abortion, but the law that as God not prevent the abortion, neither state laws should forcibly forbid it, should not receive the sacrament; but those who support the most preferred status for China with her forced abortion law, ordering to kill tens of millions of unborn fetuses each year, could be good standing Catholics. The sound balance is lost somewhere.
It's difficult to tell what this might mean.

(07-27-2009, 02:53 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:Just think over the hypocrisy: those who support not the abortion, but the law that as God not prevent the abortion, neither state laws should forcibly forbid it, should not receive the sacrament; but those who support the most preferred status for China with her forced abortion law, ordering to kill tens of millions of unborn fetuses each year, could be good standing Catholics. The sound balance is lost somewhere.
It's difficult to tell what this might mean.

Ditto. What are you saying? I can't parse this.
But that encyclicley directly contradictZ previousss church teachin's on marriajjjgg!1|!!