According to Catholicnews.com, Benedict gave an address to an international congress in Rome dedicated to celebrating Humanae Vitae - the birth control encyclical. Benedict wants the clergy to find ways to make Catholic couples see the beauty of not using birth control and asked why so many people do not understand the papal teaching on birth control.
I think people understand it, it's just that the teaching does not make any sense. There is a fallacy here that Humanae Vitae represents what the church has always taught. Those like Augustine, thought that sex was always sinful, but that it was a little less sinful if the purpose was procreation. There is not a lot of beauty there. In the middle ages, there was finally a push to say that procreation sex was beautiful. In the 21st century, it is about time that we find the beauty in non-procreative sex - a beauty that Benedict, for some reason, has difficulty seeing.
A Faithful Catholic
11 comments:
Please provide a citation for your remarks on Augustine.
"There is a fallacy here that Humanae Vitae represents what the church has always taught."
Even if we assumed that to be the case, you earlier argued against the Virgin Birth even though you acknowledged it is what the Church has always taught.
Dad29, On NewAdvent.org, which is not a liberal website, they have posted a document of Augustine on marriage in which their summary states that "this evil [meaning sex], notwithstanding, is rightly employed by marriage for the procreation of children." If you would like to look at the document itself: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15071.htm
Close, but wrong-o, "Catholic."
Augie refers to CONCUPISCENSE as "evil," not sex.
At least learn how to read in context.
Humanae Vitae is a great Church Teaching, one only needs to see the chaos of the last forty years in the family and elsewhere that has been caused by the collapse of traditional morality in favor of libertinism. The Church stayed true to form, Sex is both unitative and procreative and they cannot be separated despite how much some seek to do so.
You can basically substitute in sex for concupiscence. Augustine seems to in his writing on that page. Marriage is good because it begets children, despite concupiscence, lust, sex, etc.
No, you CANNOT 'basically substitute' concupiscence for sex.
That's like substituting 'weather' for 'rain.'
I know this takes thought. Try it once.
If you READ St. Augustine's writing, you will see he uses the terms interchangeably, like rain and precipitation.
Humanae Vitae is a beautiful teaching. But having produced a documentary on Humanue Vitae I could only find one Catholic couple who practiced NFP after the age of 35. It simply isn't feasible for most couples who are on any kind of medication, allergies, stresses of everyday life. Only in the Bishops (and Augie's) lalala land.
Realistcally if the Bishops want to hold the laity to such a high ideal (maybe slightky higher than their own in disembling during the abuse crisis), maybe they should be funding research and make NFP and thus Humanae Vitae much more practicable. They seem to have plenty of $ for lawyers.
Humanae Vitae is absurd. Sorry. Paul says in it that it is based on natural law and then says the 'church has always had the power to say what natural law says.' Meaning: 'Natural law is a waste of time. It's just what I say that has to be true.' Just another anti-sex screed by an old celibate. Jack
Humanae Vitae is far from absurd, its actually quite beautiful. It is demanding, and perhaps that is where people like you find trouble with it. You would rather have libertinism.
Post a Comment