I did not say there are no moral absolutes, or that moral absolute are bad. For example, to kill an innocent person unjustly will always be immoral. However, the dispute is over certain so-called intrinsical evil acts (like contraeption) where under no circumstances can one choose such acts. For example in Vertitatis Spendor deportation is considered intrinsically evil. Does anyone really believe that deporting an illegal alien who he or she committed a felony an intrinsically evil act?
In philosophical and theological terms, there is a real difference between a norm and a moral absolute. There are no exceptions to Humanae Vitae because the norms described within are moral absolutes. That is the problem and the problem is not resolved by pastoral practices which are in contradiction to the moral absoute in HV. This does not mean that pastoral practices are wrong, far from it. However, every priest and theologian sees the moral dilemma and the contradiction. From the Vatican's perspective, any priest that allows a married person to use the anovulant pill as a means of birth control is going against the teachings of the Church. This is not a matter of the lesser of two evils. A moral absolute, an intrinsically evil act, cannot be chosen under any circumstances. End of discussion. That is why there is a profound disagreement in the Church over HV (theologians, clergy and laity). In defending this teaching (HV) you are using your practical reason and informed conscience. So does every other Catholic who have not received this teaching. However, that is not the point. You claiming that pastoral practices can excuse a person from the teaching, and you believe that there are cases where an exception can be justified. I agree, but the Church does not permit any exceptions to moral absolutes.
You said: if premarital sex is wong, how does making it easier, by giving moral leave to use contraceptives in such instances help? This is not the right question. Taking the anovulant pill is licit for the pain of endometrosis. Should we only ban the anovulant pill because the use or abuse of them make premarital sex easier? Why don't we ban condoms as well? For that matter, let's ban all hand guns for the the use or abuse of them makes killing a person easier. Let's ban alcohol because the use and abuse of it is a primary cause of spousal abuse.
My point is that we both seem to want the Church to responsibly reform HV. If you want to debate this further, email me. I would be happy to share an essay I wrote about Humanae Vitae with you, a project that took 3 years of research.
Wayne,
I do not believe in premarital sex, nor do I believe that contraceptives should be given out by schools to young girls. In marriage, very few Catholic couples abort a child because the child was conceived by accident. Most abortions are performed by unmarried women who did not take contraceptives or did not use them consistently and responsibly.
If an unmarried woman is going to have premarital sex, then it would be prudent for her to use contraceptives to avoid an planned pregnancy and an unwanted child and the tendancy to abortion (for many, not all). This is similar to a prostitute who uses a condom to protect her client from a deadly or serious disease. No one is saying that any premarital sex is morally good.
If a married couple has children and want no more for good reasos, then they should be able to take the anovulant pill.
Lastly, you need a refresher course in Church teachings and moral theology. Humanae Vitae (HV) and its principles are moral absolutes. That means under "no circumstances" can one choose contraception. End of discussion. In the eyes of the Church artificial birth control is intrinsically evil. There are no exceptions. If you have exceptions, then the norm is conditional. What I call for is resonsible reform. However, the problem is once you modify HV, the Church will find it extremely difficult not to modify other sexual ethical teachings because HV is central to many of them in principle.
The teaching is wrong because it claims too great of a moral certitude. The teaching is wrong because it is a moral absolute.
There are moral absolutes. There is also the moral consideration that in real, pastoral terms, there is the principle of the lesser of two evils. From my perspective, this is what is happening now. Couples who find the need to use contraceptives becasue there is absolutely no other alternative are given leave to by their confessors and spiritual advisors until some other alternative presents itself. Can this be made part of Church teaching on contraception as a modification of Humanae Vitae? I do not know. I wish it could. If premaritial sex is wrong, how does making it easier, by giving moral leave to use contraceptives in such instances help. Perhaps that two is the lesser of two evils? I doubt that applies. I wouldn't even consider this case as a reason for possible modification.
Thank you, but I do not need any refreseher course in the teachings of the Church
I did not say there are no moral absolutes, or that moral absolute are bad. For example, to kill an innocent person unjustly will always be immoral. However, the dispute is over certain so-called intrinsical evil acts (like contraeption) where under no circumstances can one choose such acts. For example in Vertitatis Spendor deportation is considered intrinsically evil. Does anyone really believe that deporting an illegal alien who he or she committed a felony an intrinsically evil act?
In philosophical and theological terms, there is a real difference between a norm and a moral absolute. There are no exceptions to Humanae Vitae because the norms described within are moral absolutes. That is the problem and the problem is not resolved by pastoral practices which are in contradiction to the moral absoute in HV. This does not mean that pastoral practices are wrong, far from it. However, every priest and theologian sees the moral dilemma and the contradiction. From the Vatican's perspective, any priest that allows a married person to use the anovulant pill as a means of birth control is going against the teachings of the Church. This is not a matter of the lesser of two evils. A moral absolute, an intrinsically evil act, cannot be chosen under any circumstances. End of discussion. That is why there is a profound disagreement in the Church over HV (theologians, clergy and laity). In defending this teaching (HV) you are using your practical reason and informed conscience. So does every other Catholic who have not received this teaching. However, that is not the point. You claiming that pastoral practices can excuse a person from the teaching, and you believe that there are cases where an exception can be justified. I agree, but the Church does not permit any exceptions to moral absolutes.
You said: if premarital sex is wong, how does making it easier, by giving moral leave to use contraceptives in such instances help? This is not the right question. Taking the anovulant pill is licit for the pain of endometrosis. Should we only ban the anovulant pill because the use or abuse of them make premarital sex easier? Why don't we ban condoms as well? For that matter, let's ban all hand guns for the the use or abuse of them makes killing a person easier. Let's ban alcohol because the use and abuse of it is a primary cause of spousal abuse.
My point is that we both seem to want the Church to responsibly reform HV. If you want to debate this further, email me. I would be happy to share an essay I wrote about Humanae Vitae with you, a project that took 3 years of research.