A contraception poll. Catholics only, please!

[LaSainte]

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.

This has always been my understanding as well, at least, until I came here. Here they tell me that if my conscience tells me something different from Church teaching, my conscience is wrong and I should just follow the Church regardless. So confusing.

 

[Castello]

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.

Please back up your claim that this is the Church teaching on conscience. Cite an official source of Church doctrine.

 

[Debora123]

Please back up your claim that this is the Church teaching on conscience. Cite an official source of Church doctrine.

I think they might be referring to this from the ccc:

1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

 

[TimothyH]

I think the mentality of “these are the rules, therefore you must blindly follow them” is a poor mentality. There’s a reason why the Protestant Reformation happened, and perhaps it could have been prevented if the Church was more open to honest, down-to-earth discussion. Besides, if our Faith can’t meet the challenge of our own intellect, then how can it stand against anything?

Every non-Catholic Christian Church taught that contraception was a sin until 1930. No one can find any writing or teaching from any Christian Church prior to 1930 which teaches that use artificial contraception is anything but a grave sin.

You can characterize Catholics as blindly following aritrary rules and use phrases like, “Faith can’t meet the challenge of our own intelliect” to characterize Catholic doctrine on artificial contraception as simplistic, but the fact is that some of the greatest minds in all of Christian theology were Catholics, and these thought through the greatest intellectual challenges to our faith. We recognize these, and give them the title Doctors of the Church for exactly that reason. Augustine comes to mind, as does Thomas Aquinas, Ambose, Jerome, Basil, and many others. In or modern age, Pope John Paul II was a theological giant, a philosopher and theologian with an intellect which rivals anyone else who has ever thought about these issues. And John Paul II dedicated 129 general audiences to exactly this topic, human sexuality. You can read the text of his weekly talks here. They are amazing to read, the product of one of the greatest intellects ever to apply his mind to things of God, including the subject of contraception.

Yes, there is a reason why the reformation happened, and it had nothing to do with contraception or an inablity of Catholicism to meet intellectual challenges to the faith. The fact is that the Anglican Church was the first Christian Church to teach that artificial contraception was not always a sin, and they did so in 1930, over four hundred years after the reformation. The fruit of the reformation are Methodists and Lutherans who teach their members that it permissible to butcher infants, to cut them apart with wires and vacuum them out of their mother’s wombs into jars, their body parts hauled away in trucks to be burned. Please don’t come here and tell Catholics about the reformation and meeting intellectual challenges to the faith because the Church teaches that contraception is a sin, becaus you can only do that if moral theology and salvation history starts in 1931. Please don’t do that.

-Tim-

 

[Castello]

I think they might be referring to this from the ccc:

1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

Those are lifted out of the context that is very clear about right formation of conscience and malformed conscience. We are to form our conscience to the truth of God and follow that conscience.

ARTICLE 6
MORAL CONSCIENCE

Begins at 1776 and continues on through 1802. You gotta read and follow the whole thing!

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a6.htm#1776

 

[Leegal]

Please participate in the poll if you are a Catholic only. You need not be married. If you are separated or widowed, choose what you USED to do.

Please explain your answer below if you wish to discuss.

Your poll provides no option to respond for those who are NOW beyond child bearing years, regardless of what they did in the past. You asked what I USED to do. So, I could not answer the poll.

 

[BingoBoy]

Your poll provides no option to respond for those who are NOW beyond child bearing years, regardless of what they did in the past. You asked what I USED to do. So, I could not answer the poll.

Just vote on what you WOULD do.

If you agree with this teaching and would follow it if you were put in that situation, then go ahead and vote on the first one.

 

[Leegal]

Please back up your claim that this is the Church teaching on conscience. Cite an official source of Church doctrine.

If I am not mistaken, this was a statement made by theologians in response to Humanae Vitae in July 1968. This then was relayed to priests and was misstated as that people could follow their present conscience as to contraception. In a way, yes, but they did not explain or expand on what that conscience is that they are to follow.

This may prove useful as to the matter of conscience because it explains that conscience does not mean “oh, if I disagree with it, then my conscience tells me that I can use ABC.” It’s not a matter of “if I disagree, what should I do?”

It’s a matter of the definition of conscience too. Conscience sometimes refers to past or others’ action. In making a present decision, on ABC for example, one must look to moral truth – for their present conscience. Further, we are instructed to conform our “conscience” to the Church’s teaching.

The relevant sections are the second paragraph of this article and “Following One’s Conscience” in the middle of the page. The Church has not changed their position on ABC or infertilization.

catholicinsight.com/online/features/article_957.shtml

 

[tapiocapudding]

I agree with it but cannot follow it because my non catholic spouse refuses to trust in NFP. I’ll keep praying!

 

[LaSainte]

Those are lifted out of the context that is very clear about right formation of conscience and malformed conscience. We are to form our conscience to the truth of God and follow that conscience.

ARTICLE 6
MORAL CONSCIENCE

Begins at 1776 and continues on through 1802. You gotta read and follow the whole thing!

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a6.htm#1776

Then honestly, why put anything in the ccc about conscience at all if we are to just follow church teaching no matter what? What difference does it make?

 

[ahs]

I agree that contraception using NFP is approved by the catholic Church but why codoms used between married couples are considered not accepted…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.

Hi Peter57, I’m not sure I understand your question exactly. It appears to me you are asking why NFP is okay while artificial birth control is not. There are many readings you cna go to for the answer. Here is a clip from Pope Pius XII “Allocution to Midwives” that I have found to be helpful due to its simple explanation. It is rather long, though. I had tried to narrow it down to as little as possible and still get the message across and I will paste the link to the full article below:

… every attempt of either husband or wife in the performance of the conjugal act or in the development of its natural consequences which aims at depriving it of its inherent force and hinders the procreation of new life is immoral; and that no “indication” or need can convert an act which is intrinsically immoral into a moral and lawful one.
Today, besides, another grave problem has arisen, namely, if and how far the obligation of being ready for the service of maternity is reconcilable with the ever more general recourse to the periods of natural sterility the so-called “agenesic” periods in woman, which seems a clear expression of a will contrary to that precept…
…It is necessary first of all to consider two hypotheses. If the application of that theory [NFP] implies that husband and wife may use their matrimonial right even during the days of natural sterility no objection can be made…If, instead, husband and wife go further, that is, limiting the conjugal act exclusively to those periods, then their conduct must be examined more closely.
Here again we are faced with two hypotheses. If, one of the parties contracted marriage with the intention of **limiting the matrimonial right itself **to the periods of sterility, and not only its use, in such a manner that during the other days the other party would not even have the right to ask for the debt, than this would imply an essential defect in the marriage consent…
…However if the limitation of the act to the periods of natural sterility does not refer to the right itself but only to the use of the right, the validity of the marriage does not come up for discussion. Nonetheless, the moral lawfulness of such conduct of husband and wife should be affirmed or denied according as their intention to observe constantly those periods is or is not based on sufficiently morally sure motives…
…Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned…
(Allocution to Midwives, Pope Pius XII) emphasis and [NFP] added by me

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM

 

[ahs]

@ Peter 57:

Also, you will find this helpful…
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

 

[Jordan719]

I think the mentality of “these are the rules, therefore you must blindly follow them” is a poor mentality. There’s a reason why the Protestant Reformation happened, and perhaps it could have been prevented if the Church was more open to honest, down-to-earth discussion. Besides, if our Faith can’t meet the challenge of our own intellect, then how can it stand against anything?

God doesn’t run a democracy, but a monarchy. When the the Church speaks, thus says the Lord.

 

[ahs]

Then honestly, why put anything in the ccc about conscience at all if we are to just follow church teaching no matter what? What difference does it make?

Because most people don’t go around with a Catechism in their pocket so they can reference every scenario they encounter in the day. We form our conscience with the Truth and then when we are out-and-about and a situation arises that we are unsure how to deal with, we can use our well-formed conscience to deal with it.

 

[Jordan719]

Because most people don’t go around with a Catechism in their pocket so they can reference every scenario they encounter in the day. We form our conscience with the Truth and then when we are out-and-about and a situation arises that we are unsure how to deal with, we can use our well-formed conscience to deal with it.

Well formed being the key.

 

[Castello]

Because most people don’t go around with a Catechism in their pocket so they can reference every scenario they encounter in the day. We form our conscience with the Truth and then when we are out-and-about and a situation arises that we are unsure how to deal with, we can use our well-formed conscience to deal with it.

Amen!

Scripture says “Thy words have I hid in my heart that I might not sin against Thee”.

 

[kristacecilia]

The Church’s moral teachings are moral truths, not choices among many equal things.

I find that the “USA Today” poll mentality really offensive. As if it is OK to choose whatever one wishes. It is not a matter for opinion The Church’s teaching is a truth, which we are to embrace.

The false idea that the “percent” of Catholics who think or do this-or-that is indicative of where Church teaching should or will go is harmful.

I don’t think this mentality should be encouraged here.

Just MHO.

I completely agree.

 

[Bezant]

*My point was more to show a flaw I saw in 1ke’s example; Magisterial teaching’s not quite like Newton’s Laws.
*

but they are.
God’s law in the spiritual realm is as real and factual as God’s law in they physical realm.

The issue’s not reality of one versus the other but reliability and relativity.

Gravity’s just bare mechanics, the “how” of nature works.

Anything the Magisterial teaches is an ongoing answer to “why” nature works the way it does, a far more complicated question than “how” and it therefore will always be open to more uncertainty, reexamination and disagreement.

 

[Jaaanosik]

God doesn’t run a democracy, but a monarchy. When the the Church speaks, thus says the Lord.

What is the Church’s teaching?
It’s a sum of consciences of Church’s teachers, popes, bishops, priests and laymen.
They made statements (that formed the Magisterium) based on their well informed conscience that was inspired by The Holy Spirit.

The Magisterium stands on the well informed conscience.
If you say otherwise you are taking away the foundation of the Magisterium.

 

[Jordan719]

What is the Church’s teaching?
It’s a sum of consciences of Church’s teachers, popes, bishops, priests and laymen.
They made statements (that formed the Magisterium) based on their well informed conscience that was inspired by The Holy Spirit.

The Magisterium stands on the well informed conscience.
If you say otherwise you are taking away the foundation of the Magisterium.

God speaks through His Church, we don’t have a choice on what we believe. The Catechism of the Catholic Church along with all of the teachings of the Fathers through the centuries condemn contraception. God has spoken, we must listen.