A contraception poll. Catholics only, please!

  • Thread starter Thread starter BingoBoy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bezant said:
Definitely not.

Gravity is a fact. It has been proven and it exists universally.

We don’t prove ethics. We come to agreement on them. There are universal ones (e.g., it is wrong to murder) but even then there’s disagreement over the details.
Click to expand...
We don’t/can’t prove them, we accept them as objectively true because the Church infallibly tells us so.
 
chipeto said:
I would be careful with that word ‘proof’. There is always a point at which virtually anything can be denied.
Click to expand...
Yes.
chipeto said:
1ke makes the point that, given Catholic assumptions (and no one can reason at all without some starting assumption), the Church has the authority to pronounce on these matters. This is correct. Also, the fact that people disagree on questions of morals is not evidence that there aren’t definite answers.
Click to expand...
Sure.

Although just because the Church has an authority to judge the matter universally, doesn’t make my objections, or anyone else’s, nonsensical. I don’t object to some of the Church’s points because I’m uninformed. Some of them don’t make sense to me.
 
MartyrForJesus said:
We don’t/can’t prove them, we accept them as objectively true because the Church infallibly tells us so.
Click to expand...
My point was more to show a flaw I saw in 1ke’s example; Magisterial teaching’s not quite like Newton’s Laws.
 
HeWhoMsntBeNamd said:
Again, if this is such an obvious, glaring moral truth, then why is it so hard to understand?
Click to expand...
It’s not hard to understand if you have even a basic understanding of Classical philosophy. It’s become hard to understand because classical philosophy and truth has become obscured since the time of the sophist Hume’s occasionalism and the other inanities spouted by other (like Kant) long since. Aristotelian philosophy is also the basis for nearly every proof of God’s existence, and for a philosophical basis for theism - if the modern philosophers such as Descartes, Spinoza, Hume, and Locke are correct, there’s a much larger problem than the moral law: if the fathers of modern philosophy were right, taken on the whole, then theism is categorically false.

Start with the four causes and teleology, and read Blessed JPII’s encyclical Evangelium vitae and the document Humanae vitae: if these are too complex, you’re going to need a crash course in Realist philosophy, and Aristotelian realism, which, if not learned from the writings of Aristotle himself, can be quickly learned as such in the books The Last Superstition (regardless of the title, it’s actually an introduction and defense of Aristotelian metaphysics with practical applications), theBeginner’s Guide to Aquinas, and Routledge’s Real Essentialism.

Any book on the natural moral law will also show this, but it will likely be nonsensical to you if you don’t have a grasp of classical realist philosophy, instead of the conceptualist (or worse) modern philosophy as espoused by virtually everyone after Hume.
 
LucyLight said:
Your effort should be commended. You obviously have great faith to follow something you don’t understand. It is always helpful to fully understand a teaching of the church, but when we can’t we just have to leave it up to faith.
Click to expand...
Thank you so much 🙂 it really is a struggle, and some days I feel like my faith and resolve is stronger than on others.
 
I’m sorry people, but “natural moral law” is simply a philosophical concept, and one not accepted as valid by many. Just because someone doesn’t accept it doesn’t mean that they do not understand the concept. I could just as well use a myriad of other philosophical concepts to oppose “natural law”. It’s not the “be all and end all” and proclaiming “natural law” does not immediately end an argument.
 
I’d love to hear any of those opposing concepts that aren’t based in some form of conceptualism, nominalism, or the Kantian/deontological additions to them, i.e. concepts that hold up under scrutiny. No matter how excellent the theory, trying to ground it in conceptualism or nominalism is like trying to ground basic arithmetic with something other than Peano’s axioms.

I imagine a Platonist could give it a nice try (but, Platonic ethics would be very similar to natural moral law, expressed using different semantics).
 
Khalid said:
It’s not hard to understand if you have even a basic understanding of Classical philosophy. It’s become hard to understand because classical philosophy and truth has become obscured since the time of the sophist Hume’s occasionalism and the other inanities spouted by other (like Kant) long since. Aristotelian philosophy is also the basis for nearly every proof of God’s existence, and for a philosophical basis for theism - if the modern philosophers such as Descartes, Spinoza, Hume, and Locke are correct, there’s a much larger problem than the moral law: if the fathers of modern philosophy were right, taken on the whole, then theism is categorically false.

Start with the four causes and teleology, and read Blessed JPII’s encyclical Evangelium vitae and the document Humanae vitae: if these are too complex, you’re going to need a crash course in Realist philosophy, and Aristotelian realism, which, if not learned from the writings of Aristotle himself, can be quickly learned as such in the books The Last Superstition (regardless of the title, it’s actually an introduction and defense of Aristotelian metaphysics with practical applications), theBeginner’s Guide to Aquinas, and Routledge’s Real Essentialism.

Any book on the natural moral law will also show this, but it will likely be nonsensical to you if you don’t have a grasp of classical realist philosophy, instead of the conceptualist (or worse) modern philosophy as espoused by virtually everyone after Hume.
Click to expand...
I think that was HeWhoMustNotBeNamed’s point was. If it was easy to understand, one wouldn’t have to read to 5 philosophical books to understand it. 🤷

Doing so isn’t required to understand pretty much all the other moral laws of the Church.
 
thistle said:
So that you don’t waste our time doing future polls like this.
Click to expand...
No offense, but what makes you think I’ll stop making polls however I choose to just because you think they are a waste of time? :confused:

BTW it looks to me like you’re wasting your own time. I didn’t hold a gun to your head when you decided to participate. 🙂
 
MartyrForJesus said:
This type of poll offends faithful Catholics, because it in a way puts a message across that you have the liberty to pick and choose what you want to follow or not and still be a faithful Catholic, whether you meant it or not. That of course is not true.
Click to expand...
Do you know and understand the Church’s teaching on conscience?
 
I’m confused about option #2 and the 4 people who selected that as their option.

If someone agrees with Church teaching, why would they not follow it, or plan not to follow it? :confused:

Just curious if anyone can shed some light.

Thanks! 🙂
 
I can see #4 coming up in situations where, say, one spouse believes in NFP and wishes to practice it, whereas the other spouse disagrees with the the Church’s position on contraception and NFP. However, that spouse agrees to practice NFP for the sake of his/her spouse.

#2 I would imagine is more problematic. It would require a rebellious, “do as I say, not as I do” mentality.
 
Bezant said:
My point was more to show a flaw I saw in 1ke’s example; Magisterial teaching’s not quite like Newton’s Laws.
Click to expand...
but they are.

God’s law in the spiritual realm is as real and factual as God’s law in they physical realm.
 
I agree that contraception using NFP is approved by the catholic Church but why codoms used between married couples are considered not accepted.

In case the couples agree for using this method (condoms) and are over 45 years old and more specially in the females and there is a higher risk of having congenital anomalies in case of pregnancy as proved medically or financially cannot afford or any transmitted disease can occur between the married couple eg Virus C or anything else.

Why condoms are not accepted by the Catholic Church and the idea of birth control by NFP is accepted. So the idea of birth control by the Catholic Church is accepted.

Condom are not 100% safe like NFP method, I know many cases who became pregnant also they were using condoms.

For the other methods of contraception there is a high risk of complications to the male or female I agree that they are not accepted.

If an Apologist can give me an answer to my opinion I ll be very thankful.

Thank you
 
Warrior1979 said:
I can see #4 coming up in situations where, say, one spouse believes in NFP and wishes to practice it, whereas the other spouse disagrees with the the Church’s position on contraception and NFP. However, that spouse agrees to practice NFP for the sake of his/her spouse.

#2 I would imagine is more problematic. It would require a rebellious, “do as I say, not as I do” mentality.
Click to expand...
Actually, both my husband and I STRONGLY disagree with the Church stance on contraception, but I’m a scaredy cat and afraid of hell if the Church is right. If we ever do choose to go against this teaching, we will no longer be Catholic, or at least, no longer be able to participate in the sacraments. I’m not going to continue to receive communion and go to confession of the Church doesn’t want me because of this choice. I’ll follow the rules or get out.
 
I chose the first option, I would say I agree with the teaching because it is the Church’s teaching and I believe in the Church, but I don’t fully understand it. However, since I agree with the Church, I plan on following the teaching.
 
LaSainte said:
Actually, both my husband and I STRONGLY disagree with the Church stance on contraception, but I’m a scaredy cat and afraid of hell if the Church is right. If we ever do choose to go against this teaching, we will no longer be Catholic, or at least, no longer be able to participate in the sacraments. I’m not going to continue to receive communion and go to confession of the Church doesn’t want me because of this choice. I’ll follow the rules or get out.
Click to expand...
Actually, in this case you should study the Church’s teaching, study a lot; and when you think you are done you study more! You study till you have well informed conscience.
If you still end up disagreeing with the Church’s teaching then you are supposed follow your conscience. That’s the Church’s teaching on conscience.

The question is if you trust yourself that you can form well informed concsience.
 
Jaaanosik said:
Actually, in this case you should study the Church’s teaching, study a lot; and when you think you are done you study more! You study till you have well informed conscience.
If you still end up disagreeing with the Church’s teaching then you are supposed follow your conscience. That’s the Church’s teaching on conscience.

The question is if you trust yourself that you can form well informed concsience.
Click to expand...
I don’t think this is correct…I don’t think the Church says that if you study a lot and then follow your “well-informed conscience” that it’s ok to use contraception because you’re following your conscience. I don’t think a truly well-informed conscience would disagree with the Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top