A contraception poll. Catholics only, please!

  • Thread starter Thread starter BingoBoy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
tvdxer said:
I would phrase it like this:

“As much as my heart doubts it, my mind knows its the truth and I plan on submitting to it in action if I ever get married”
Click to expand...
It might be easy to say this when you’re not married, but in practice, for a married couple, it is difficult, and that needs to be acknowledged.
 
LaSainte said:
It might be easy to say this when you’re not married, but in practice, for a married couple, it is difficult, and that needs to be acknowledged.
Click to expand...
Jesus PROMISED us that following Him would be difficult, that the path to heaven was very hard to find, that we will be mocked and ridiculed and that we will suffer. This is acknowledged by all of the teaching of the Church and all of the faithful.
 
I think it’s incorrect. I think it’s an antiquated policy that should have been eliminated. Even so, I still follow it, which is why I’m not going to have sex for about another 25 years.
 
Jaaanosik said:
The Church itself struggled with HV as you can see here (26).
Click to expand...
The Church didn’t struggle with Herself over anything. People within the Church struggled with the Truth, which was to be expected…just as people within the Church are struggling with the corrected English translation of the Mass. But those people, despite their struggles adn disagreements, are still called to submit to the Authority of the Church, which is handed to Her by God. And even those Bishops of Canada recognized the importance of this and recognized the fact that the Pope had issued a Truth, not an opinion.
 
LaSainte said:
It might be easy to say this when you’re not married, but in practice, for a married couple, it is difficult, and that needs to be acknowledged.
Click to expand...
Maybe for your marriage, but not mine. Not every couple struggles with this teaching.
 
ahs said:
The Church didn’t struggle with Herself over anything. People within the Church struggled with the Truth, which was to be expected…just as people within the Church are struggling with the corrected English translation of the Mass. But those people, despite their struggles adn disagreements, are still called to submit to the Authority of the Church, which is handed to Her by God. And even those Bishops of Canada recognized the importance of this and recognized the fact that the Pope had issued a Truth, not an opinion.
Click to expand...
Would you explain more, please, how this came about? I’ve read what I can find from posts here. In a nuthsell, there were indeed disagreements among bishops, cardinals, etc as to the issue of contraception, etc. In the end, Pope JP made a final decision in spite of disagreements and called the shot. Overly simplified, I know, but that is the gist of what I can find. Seaches on line yielded nothing.

Saying that the church didn’t struggle, but people within it did, is like saying that the pope is the church, because he made the final decision - ? So were all of the other people who disagreed not also guided by the holy spirit as those in the “majority” believed they were? I find it confusing, to be honest. It seems that all of them could or did say/believe they were being guided by the HS, but in the end, the pope makes the final call. Or does it even matter what each person believed in the debate? Any links you can post?
 
searching04 said:
Would you explain more, please, how this came about? I’ve read what I can find from posts here. In a nuthsell, there were indeed disagreements among bishops, cardinals, etc as to the issue of contraception, etc. In the end, Pope JP made a final decision in spite of disagreements and called the shot. Overly simplified, I know, but that is the gist of what I can find. Seaches on line yielded nothing.

Saying that the church didn’t struggle, but people within it did, is like saying that the pope is the church, because he made the final decision - ? So were all of the other people who disagreed not also guided by the holy spirit as those in the “majority” believed they were? I find it confusing, to be honest. It seems that all of them could or did say/believe they were being guided by the HS, but in the end, the pope makes the final call. Or does it even matter what each person believed in the debate? Any links you can post?
Click to expand...
Hi, sure I can explain more. The Church is the Church established by God, and the Church Herself does not conflict with Herself. I’m not quoting anything, this is just my understanding. People within the Church, however, can. Likewise, the Mystical Body cannot be at conflict with Itself, although a member of that Body can be at conflict with the Body or with another member of teh Body. The arm can say to the leg, “I don’t need you” or to the rest of teh Body “I don’t need you”. But the Body as a whole knows that both the arm and the leg are needed and that all the parts are needed to make a whole.

Anyway, the Church was established with someone to lead it…a shepherd…a person to make sure that the lambs do not follow the “wolves in sheep’s clothing”. The Pope is ultimately responsible for shepherding Christ’s Flock (us). That is why, when Bishops and Priests disagree on Doctrine, the Pope must step in and state what the Teaching is. It is the Pope that must inform the Flock that God’s Teaching is…(fill in the blank).

Also, it is not the Pope,* per se *that makes the final call. The Pope voices the Truth. The Truth is from God, and God makes the final call…in fact God’s final call has never changed in matters of Church Doctrine…and the Pope is only re-stating the Truth that has always been. And God has given the Pope Authority to do this in these matters of Doctrine. People within the Church…members of the Body…sheep within the Flock…individuals…will always have disagreements or misunderstandings because part of the sinful nature we inherited involves rebellion against Truth. When these disagreements/rebellions/misunderstandings come forth, the Pope will generally write an Encyclical to clarify what the Truth is so that we will know the Truth and can thus submit ourselves to God’s Truth.

I don’t have any links handy at the moment for this particular post. If you’d like the Catechism references I can look those up for you. But, I would assume that you have access to that as easily as I do.
 
searching04 said:
Would you explain more, please, how this came about? I’ve read what I can find from posts here. In a nuthsell, there were indeed disagreements among bishops, cardinals, etc as to the issue of contraception, etc. In the end, Pope JP made a final decision in spite of disagreements and called the shot. Overly simplified, I know, but that is the gist of what I can find. Seaches on line yielded nothing.

Saying that the church didn’t struggle, but people within it did, is like saying that the pope is the church, because he made the final decision - ? So were all of the other people who disagreed not also guided by the holy spirit as those in the “majority” believed they were? I find it confusing, to be honest. It seems that all of them could or did say/believe they were being guided by the HS, but in the end, the pope makes the final call. Or does it even matter what each person believed in the debate? Any links you can post?
Click to expand...
See the link in the post #161.
That was official for 40 years in Canada.
 
Yeah, I disagree but I still follow. That’s why my wife’s having our fourth daughter after our third hasn’t even reached a year old yet. :doh2:

Her friends on Facebook always add the comment LMFAO, whatever that means, whenever she tells them something about our newest addition. They act like we’re idiots for having more children.

But I don’t disagree with contraception completely, as I’ve never used or wanted to use physical contraceptives… I just disagree with not being able to use the “withdrawal” method. I mean for goodness sake, there’s still a chance for procreation just the same as NFP offers a chance. What’s the difference…? 🤷
 
searching04 said:
Would you explain more, please, how this came about? I’ve read what I can find from posts here. In a nuthsell, there were indeed disagreements among bishops, cardinals, etc as to the issue of contraception, etc. In the end, Pope JP made a final decision in spite of disagreements and called the shot. Overly simplified, I know, but that is the gist of what I can find. Seaches on line yielded nothing.

Saying that the church didn’t struggle, but people within it did, is like saying that the pope is the church, because he made the final decision - ? So were all of the other people who disagreed not also guided by the holy spirit as those in the “majority” believed they were? I find it confusing, to be honest. It seems that all of them could or did say/believe they were being guided by the HS, but in the end, the pope makes the final call. Or does it even matter what each person believed in the debate? Any links you can post?
Click to expand...
Hi, here’s just a quick tidbit on Primacy of the Pope. And as to the bolded…I think you are confusing the Magesterium with the general clergy within the Church. Not all are led by the Holy Spirit. Some are led by an ill-formed conscience, just as we, the laity can be.

catholic.com/tracts/peters-primacy
 
ahs said:
Hi, here’s just a quick tidbit on Primacy of the Pope. And as to the bolded…I think you are confusing the Magesterium with the general clergy within the Church. Not all are led by the Holy Spirit. Some are led by an ill-formed conscience, just as we, the laity can be.

catholic.com/tracts/peters-primacy
Click to expand...
Pope can not have ill-informed conscience?
What is Magisterium?
 
Jaaanosik said:
Pope can not have ill-informed conscience?
What is Magisterium?
Click to expand...
Haha let me ask you this. Lets say the president of the U.S has an issue that they are debating back and forth on. The U.S has held a constant position on the issue for almost 200 years but your debating whether because of new knowledge it should be changed. The president arranges to set up a council to talk the issue over. Who does he invite to the council about whether or not to change sides on the issue especially assuming the president is well versed in the reasoning behind why for 200 years they have held the opinion that they have? Would it not make sense that most of the people he would invite to give their opinion on the matter would be there to explain the arguments in support of changing? Inviting people that would come and just rat off what he already knows would be kind of pointless wouldn’t it?

This is just a case of the Pope being under fire no matter how he handled the issue. He could have stacked the council with people he knew would agree with him and then you all would argue that he never listened to the opposing view point. He gives the opposite side a large voice as was appropriate and reasonable and you argue he ignored them. The council wasn’t set up to vote on the issue. It was setup to give council. You should applaud the Pope in making every attempt to hear out all the arguments in favor of allowing for contraception.

Now can we please put this point to rest?
 
Nate13 said:
Haha let me ask you this. Lets say the president of the U.S has an issue that they are debating back and forth on. The U.S has held a constant position on the issue for almost 200 years but your debating whether because of new knowledge it should be changed. The president arranges to set up a council to talk the issue over. Who does he invite to the council about whether or not to change sides on the issue especially assuming the president is well versed in the reasoning behind why for 200 years they have held the opinion that they have? Would it not make sense that most of the people he would invite to give their opinion on the matter would be there to explain the arguments in support of changing? Inviting people that would come and just rat off what he already knows would be kind of pointless wouldn’t it?

This is just a case of the Pope being under fire no matter how he handled the issue. He could have stacked the council with people he knew would agree with him and then you all would argue that he never listened to the opposing view point. He gives the opposite side a large voice as was appropriate and reasonable and you argue he ignored them. The council wasn’t set up to vote on the issue. It was setup to give council. You should applaud the Pope in making every attempt to hear out all the arguments in favor of allowing for contraception.

Now can we please put this point to rest?
Click to expand...
My bad if I was misunderstood.
I did have in mind this instance - HV; saying if he was right or wrong.
I was talking in general - how are the Pope and the Magisterium related.

Now, when you mentioned it I’ll say this. The Pope decided to issue the HV as he did.
HV is not ex-cathedra that leaves an option for the future Popes to expand it, be more specific.
 
Nate13 said:
Haha let me ask you this. Lets say the president of the U.S has an issue that they are debating back and forth on. The U.S has held a constant position on the issue for almost 200 years but your debating whether because of new knowledge it should be changed. The president arranges to set up a council to talk the issue over. Who does he invite to the council about whether or not to change sides on the issue especially assuming the president is well versed in the reasoning behind why for 200 years they have held the opinion that they have? Would it not make sense that most of the people he would invite to give their opinion on the matter would be there to explain the arguments in support of changing? Inviting people that would come and just rat off what he already knows would be kind of pointless wouldn’t it?

This is just a case of the Pope being under fire no matter how he handled the issue. He could have stacked the council with people he knew would agree with him and then you all would argue that he never listened to the opposing view point. He gives the opposite side a large voice as was appropriate and reasonable and you argue he ignored them. The council wasn’t set up to vote on the issue. It was setup to give council. You should applaud the Pope in making every attempt to hear out all the arguments in favor of allowing for contraception.

Now can we please put this point to rest?

On a side note one of the most influential voices in sticking with the stance on contraception up until that point was JPII. God has a funny way of telling someone their wrong by making them Pope 1 month later…
Click to expand...
 
As a side note it should be mentioned the JPII was one of the most staunch defenders of keeping the Church’s stance on contraception at that council and was almost one of the most influential voices there. God sure had a funny way of telling him he was wrong by making him Pope just shortly after that council especially when he went on to spend much of his pontificate defending the positions he outlined in Humane Vitae. Is it not also weird that he was so well loved by the youth of the World?
 
Jaaanosik said:
See the link in the post #161.
That was official for 40 years in Canada.
Click to expand...
Actually, that’s quite misleading. The Winnipeg statement was a statement of the views of the Canadian Bishops. It wasn’t “official” in any way. It did not over ride HV. It was a bit like the minority opinion often issued when the Supreme Court issues a ruling.
 
Corki said:
Actually, that’s quite misleading. The Winnipeg statement was a statement of the views of the Canadian Bishops. It wasn’t “official” in any way. It did not over ride HV. It was a bit like the minority opinion often issued when the Supreme Court issues a ruling.
Click to expand...
Really?
Why there was another one 40 years later if the first one was nothing?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top