A contraception poll. Catholics only, please!

[Leegal]

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

True. Those of us who live in the U.S. are so well versed in our democratic freedoms that we forget that no religion is a democracy and we don’t get a vote.

The Church was not confused. Theologians neglected to convey the definition of a “present conscience.” Which is why theologians are not infallible (they may have been Bishops, I forget now), and one is not free to dismiss teachings but to explore and examine them closely. You must submit your will and make an honest attempt to reconcile the conflict. In the end we are obligated to also examine the issue (contraception or sterilization) at it relates to the entire history of the Church.

Ultimately, the infallible trumps the fallible.

However, I think this whole question arises because conscience was not clarified by theologians, when expounding on Humanae Vitae, and did not make clear that there is conscience and a “present conscience” – which is required to conform to teachings.

No one said this was going to be easy.

 

[ac_claire]

The results of the this poll are heartening. That’s all I wanted to say.

 

[Jaaanosik]

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.

God does not want Catholics to be programmed robots.

 

[ac_claire]

God does not want Catholics to be programmed robots.

What does this mean? What do programmed robots have to do with anything? Just because you follow the laws of the land, for instance, does that make you a “programmed robot”?

 

[Debora123]

What does this mean? What do programmed robots have to do with anything? Just because you follow the laws of the land, for instance, does that make you a “programmed robot”?

I think Janosik was responding to the post that seemed to suggest we should just follow the rules blindly without asking questions in an attempt to understand what those rules mean or why they are there.

 

[chipeto]

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.

You are talking about teleology. Wouldn’t the above statement necessarily be false for someone who accepts the Church’s authority to pronounce on these matters? And if one did not accept the Church’s authority, wouldn’t the entire debate be irrelevant?

 

[LaSainte]

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?

Just curious if anyone can shed some light.

Thanks!

I agree with this. For those who agree with the teaching, why would you not practice it?

 

[MulletsAndBeer]

I am not allowed to vote in the poll but my response would be that I disagree with the Church teaching on contraception.

Now let the CAF begin stoning me on the count of three. One…two…

 

[Castello]

God does not want Catholics to be programmed robots.

God gives us free will to either choose Him or reject Him. Thing is, we cannot choose by inches - we choose 100% or we reject Him. As said - we have to be either hot or cold, lukewarm is not dealt with in a pretty way.

 

[ahs]

I agree with this. For those who agree with the teaching, why would you not practice it?

This poster likely falls into that category:

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

Of course, this could be a whole new topic with a whole new debate…but I digress…

 

[anp1215]

The results of the this poll are heartening. That’s all I wanted to say.

Not really to me…I know Catholics on CAF are not representative of the actual Catholic population, especially in this respect.

 

[TradionalWay]

Most teenagers need to know this… The reason we have sexual intercourse is to produce children,not to have fun… SO why use contraception if your supose to do it to have children

 

[Debora123]

Most teenagers need to know this… The reason we have sexual intercourse is to produce children,not to have fun… SO why use contraception if your supose to do it to have children

Half the reason is to have children, but the other half IS to “have fun.”

Although the having fun is supposed to be a special act of love you share with your spouse in a bonding, unitive way… and not something casual you do with just anyone.

If what you say above really were the case, then intentional periodic abstinence to avoid pregnancy would be condemned by the Church… which it is not.

 

[Leegal]

God does not want Catholics to be programmed robots.

Nor do I. But I think the examination of conscience is a bit more complex than is obvious. I already posted where the confusion over conscience comes in. Basically, that examination takes place within the teachings of the Church. As I said, it’s not enough that one disagree, and finds some support, but after careful study of all that is available, what can we in our “present conscience” find that conforms to The Church?

Is the writing fallible, as I pointed out by those Bishops who simply used the term conscience without explanation, leaving open interpretation or misguidance?

I think if you look at it as the present conscience being not a matter of one letter or article, but as a whole, your present conscience must conform to Church teachings.

Unfortunately, the issue of leaving the decision to one’s conscience has long been misunderstood and misinterpreted because there are many levels. The Church did not change it’s teaching. Maybe it was not clear, but it did not change.

Look at it this way. The Pope issued a statement on the use of condoms last year. In translation it was unclear as to a word. The Church had to clarify what the Pope was saying and how the translation was not what the Pope had meant to use as a word. A mistake in a translating from one language to another does not change what the Pope said. The Pope must be followed – the translation had an error.

 

[bearer]

Hm, there are nineteen apostates, or perhaps people who are pretending to be Catholic for purposes of this poll.

 

[Warrior1979]

Hm, there are nineteen apostates, or perhaps people who are pretending to be Catholic for purposes of this poll.

And apparently there is one judge.

 

[Khalid]

God does not want Catholics to be programmed robots.

We are not. Programmed robots are philosophical zombies (disregarding concepts of “general artificial intellgence”), which - regarding p-zombies, and, with qualification, strong AI - I believe to be metaphysically impossible, but a plurality of philosophers believe the concept to be metaphysically possible, but impossible in actuality.

Hm, there are nineteen apostates, or perhaps people who are pretending to be Catholic for purposes of this poll.

No, there aren’t. Only thirteen.

 

[Debora123]

Hm, there are nineteen apostates, or perhaps people who are pretending to be Catholic for purposes of this poll.

In all fairness, not agreeing with the Church on a moral issue doesn’t make someone not Catholic.

 

[Nate13]

In all fairness, not agreeing with the Church on a moral issue doesn’t make someone not Catholic.

Your correct. Definitely not apostasy. Possibly heretical, but even then see below. It depends on how well defined you believe you the doctrine to be. After Casti Canubi and Humanae Vitae I would find it hard to argue about what the Church “really” means though.

newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm#REF_III
Degrees of heresy

Both matter and form of heresy admit of degrees which find expression in the following technical formula of theology and canon law. Pertinacious adhesion to a doctrine contradictory to a point of faith clearly defined by the Church is heresy pure and simple, heresy in the first degree. But if the doctrine in question has not been expressly “defined” or is not clearly proposed as an article of faith in the ordinary, authorized teaching of the Church, an opinion opposed to it is styled sententia haeresi proxima, that is, an opinion approaching heresy. Next, a doctrinal proposition, without directly contradicting a received dogma, may yet involve logical consequences at variance with revealed truth. Such a proposition is not heretical, it is a propositio theologice erronea, that is, erroneous in theology. Further, the opposition to an article of faith may not be strictly demonstrable, but only reach a certain degree of probability. In that case the doctrine is termed sententia de haeresi suspecta, haeresim sapiens; that is, an opinion suspected, or savouring, of heresy (see THEOLOGICAL CENSURES).

 

[chipeto]

Half the reason is to have children, but the other half IS to “have fun.”

Although the having fun is supposed to be a special act of love you share with your spouse in a bonding, unitive way… and not something casual you do with just anyone.

If what you say above really were the case, then intentional periodic abstinence to avoid pregnancy would be condemned by the Church… which it is not.

How so? I don’t disagree with your general point, but I think your last sentence is a non sequitur.