ABC as pastorally appropriate for kids who regardless might or are going to engage in sex?

[setter]

Both credentialed (PhD psychologists) self identified “faithful Catholic” speakers at a recent diocesan sponsed workshop on human sexuality when addressing effective strategies to reach adolescents, stated their opinion that there is need for “open dialogue” amongst Church ministers regarding the pastoral prudence and licitness of explaining to kids the use of contraception, as an option, should the kids not yet suscribe to abstinence only programming. This encompassing prescription/approach was offered as superseeding/bypassing the moral wrong of contraception due to the health and pregnancy risks of having “unprotected” sex (either oral or vaginal). Is this consistent with Catholic moral teaching and pastoral guidance to our impressionable and often ungrounded adolescents and young adult unmarried Catholics?

 

[Pete_1]

2370Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:159

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm#2370

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39

II. GOOD ACTS AND EVIL ACTS
1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).
The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.
1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm#1755

 

[mercygate]

Kids are hearing about contraception all over the place. You can’t drive down the street without seeing a billboard advertising safe sex.

They need to hear from us ONE clear message about WHY we take the position we do. Double messages will only muddy the water. And they need to hear that if a guy tells a girl its a sin to use a condom but doesn’t think it’s a sin to engage in premarital sex with her, that she ought to run like H-E-double hockey sticks. Guys need to hear that uncontracepted sex with someone who is not your wife is still sex with someone not your wife.

They’ll connect the dots for themselves if they choose to fornicate.

 

[fix]

Both credentialed (PhD psychologists) self identified “faithful Catholic” speakers at a recent diocesan sponsed workshop on human sexuality when addressing effective strategies to reach adolescents, stated their opinion that there is need for “open dialogue” amongst Church ministers regarding the pastoral prudence and licitness of explaining to kids the use of contraception, as an option, should the kids not yet suscribe to abstinence only programming. This encompassing prescription/approach was offered as superseeding/bypassing the moral wrong of contraception due to the health and pregnancy risks of having “unprotected” sex (either oral or vaginal). Is this consistent with Catholic moral teaching and pastoral guidance to our impressionable and often ungrounded adolescents and young adult unmarried Catholics?

Regardless of the act being contraceptive or not I would like these folks to defend the position it is morally good to help children commit bads acts.

Which other immoral acts ought we provide guidance on how best to be physically safe while mortally sinning? Does that go for drinking and driving, or IV drug use, or child pornography?

Why is this one area deemed ok to help sin “safely”?

 

[ChangingHeart]

Don’t drink and drive, but if you do, be sure you are wearing your seat belts.

We can’t tell kids, “Accept this teaching when you are ready.”

We need to instead send them the strong message, “Knowingly and willingly violating this teaching is a mortal sin.”

Oh and one more thing, only YOU can prevent forest fires(but if you don’t, you can always call the fire department.)

 

[setter]

We can’t tell kids, “Accept this teaching when you are ready.”

We need to instead send them the strong message, “Knowingly and willingly violating this teaching is a mortal sin.”

The point of the presenters was that the “millenial” generation has not been culturally indoctrinated to understand and accept the “rules” and moral absolutes of Church teaching. Therefore, they are not disposed to take at the force of “Knowingly and willingly violating this teaching is a mortal sin.” as a basis for making behavior and moral choices.

The point of the presenters seemed to be that until these kids are imbued and evangelized enough to consider Church teaching authority as distinctly qualified from the other voices that they have been inculcated with, pastorally we should seek to met them where they are at and at least give them the options to limit further damage from the choices that run counter to the theological anthropological truth of who they are, i.e., empasize *spiritual theology *over *moral theology *as a way to ultimately reach and convert them. Sort of a back door, internal change process that will ultimately yield the fruit of outward conformity and righteousness with Catholic moral theology.

 

[fix]

The point of the presenters was that the “millenial” generation has not been culturally indoctrinated to understand and accept the “rules” and moral absolutes of Church teaching. Therefore, they are not disposed to take at the force of “Knowingly and willingly violating this teaching is a mortal sin.” as a basis for making behavior and moral choices.

Are young people not rational? Do we keep the moral law because we love God or do we love God because we keep the law?

The point of the presenters seemed to be that until these kids are imbued and evangelized enough to consider Church teaching authority as distinctly qualified from the other voices that they have been inculcated with, pastorally we should seek to met them where they are at and at least give them the options to limit further damage from the choices that run counter to the theological anthropological truth of who they are, i.e., empasize *spiritual theology *over *moral theology *as a way to ultimately reach and convert them. Sort of a back door, internal change process that will ultimately yield the fruit of outward conformity and righteousness with Catholic moral theology.

Why is one aspect superior to the other? Are not spiritual and moral truths connected? Would this “method” be acceptable regarding things like arson?

 

[setter]

Are young people not rational? Do we keep the moral law because we love God or do we love God because we keep the law?

The point of the presenters was that many younger folks do not have the same foundation and basis for making moral choices as previous generations. That they have been formed by a multitude of diverse (name removed by moderator)uts and worldviews, and that unfortunately Catholicism is just one among many systems for making moral choices. IOW, got to get these millennial generation folks pointed in the right direction, at least in the arena, of seriously considering Catholic teaching and papal authority as having credibility over their lives, since the Church has not been there in substantial ways and relevency before, only as a moral rule maker. IOW, spare your moral rod until you tickle and fancy my intellect with a firm basis (rational carrot) for knowing and acting, since you are only one voice among many.

Why is one aspect superior to the other? Are not spiritual and moral truths connected? Would this “method” be acceptable regarding things like arson?

The point of the presenters was effectiveness in ministry with these Millennials generation of young folks. That in service of effectiveness, one must first “spiritualize” one’s understanding and appreciation of self and others, then, and only then will the millennials be willing and ready to accept and internalize Catholic moral teaching as their own internal system of values and beliefs.

This makes sense to me. I do not agree with you wait until they are converted enough to present the truth and expect moral behavior that is in accord with the dignity of their persons made in the image and likeness of God.

 

[fix]

The point of the presenters was that many younger folks do not have the same foundation and basis for making moral choices as previous generations.

That can be said at many points in history.

That they have been formed by a multitude of diverse (name removed by moderator)uts and worldviews, and that unfortunately Catholicism is just one among many systems for making moral choices. IOW, got to get these millennial generation folks pointed in the right direction, at least in the arena, of seriously considering Catholic teaching and papal authority as having credibility over their lives, since the Church has not been there in substantial ways and relevency before, only as a moral rule maker. IOW, spare your moral rod until you tickle and fancy my intellect with a firm basis (rational carrot) for knowing and acting, since you are only one voice among many.

My point was to show it is not only about a “rod”. We follow the law because we love God.

The point of the presenters was effectiveness in ministry with these Millennials generation of young folks. That in service of effectiveness, one must first “spiritualize” one’s understanding and appreciation of self and others, then, and only then will the millennials be willing and ready to accept and internalize Catholic moral teaching as their own internal system of values and beliefs.

What does spiritualize mean?

This makes sense to me. I do not agree with you wait until they are converted enough to present the truth and expect moral behavior that is in accord with the dignity of their persons made in the image and likeness of God.

?

 

[Markstorm]

Some good Catholic apologetics in this thread, I think what needed to be refuted has been.

“Don’t sin, but if you’re going to then do it this way” is a bad idea. Besides, this probably won’t affect many teens anyway. If fornication is not grave enough to stop them in their tracks, why should a controversial teaching about contraception?

 

[jmcrae]

Both credentialed (PhD psychologists) self identified “faithful Catholic” speakers at a recent diocesan sponsed workshop on human sexuality when addressing effective strategies to reach adolescents, stated their opinion that there is need for “open dialogue” amongst Church ministers regarding the pastoral prudence and licitness of explaining to kids the use of contraception, as an option, should the kids not yet suscribe to abstinence only programming. This encompassing prescription/approach was offered as superseeding/bypassing the moral wrong of contraception due to the health and pregnancy risks of having “unprotected” sex (either oral or vaginal). Is this consistent with Catholic moral teaching and pastoral guidance to our impressionable and often ungrounded adolescents and young adult unmarried Catholics?

For myself, I have no plans to endorse “safe sex” to the youth under my pastoral care - even though some of them come from broken homes and mixed-marriage homes where they hear about “protection” being used during sex both within and outside of the bonds of marriage.

If someone else wants to teach them about “safe sex” they may have at, but as for me, they will hear nothing but the undiluted truth from me. They are smart kids, and I expect them to figure out the difference soon enough. Will kids make mistakes? That’s what they do, yes; that’s why they need adult guidance. But it would not be a favour to them to encourage them to make mistakes, or to make it “safe” for them to make mistakes.

There are ways of presenting the information, such that the message gets through without sounding like “moralizing” - watering down the message isn’t one of them, though.

First, teach kids to avoid situations that could lead to sex, in the first place. We don’t wait until we are alone with someone in a darkened room and the other person is half-undressed before letting them know that we want to be chaste - by then, it is too late to save both the relationship and your chastity - one of the two (either the chastity or the friendship) is about to go out the window, at that moment.

Kids with strong self-esteem are able to resist sexual advances more easily than kids with low self-esteem, so “new-agey” as it may seem, make sure your kids have a strong self-concept, and believe themselves to be worth defending and protecting, even when you’re not around. A girl who knows her parents and friends think she’s wonderful will be less likely to fall into the trap of mistaking sex for love. A boy who is busy impressing everyone on the field and in the classroom will be a lot less likely to feel the need to “score” with a girl - his manhood is in no doubt, as far as he’s concerned.

 

[setter]

That can be said at many points in history.

True …your point?

My point was to show it is not only about a “rod”. We follow the law because we love God.

The well taken point of the presenters was that how can you love the God of the Law unless you first understand and encounter Him through your lived life experience and encounter with those who are His representatives and presence here in this life’s journey? Love is more than an intellectual ascent, but must also take on real flesh through relationships with others.

What does spiritualize mean?

Good question …I believe to come to a fuller understanding and appreication that we are made in the image and likeness of God as enfleshed spiritual being, and moral in nature. Many millennial folks have no such inklings or appreciation or proper understanding as such …Would you not agree with this in your encounters with the young, and largely unchurched millennial (High School graduates year 2000 and beyond) Catholics in our midst?

?

Make sense now?

 

[ChangingHeart]

We can’t flip-flop on values. We can’t tell them that condoms are alright one second, but then no longer acceptable once the person is spiritually ready to hear the truth.

One of the many wonderful things about the Catholic Church has been Her consistency of doctrines throughout nearly 2,000 years.

If a young lady makes a mistake, regrets that mistake, and knows that she made that mistake with what she perceives as Catholic Church approval, and then sees Protestant denominations preaching abstinence, forget it. That girl’s life has just been ruined by the “tolerance” of the “Catholic Church” for an intrisically evil act, and she will likely never accept the true faith.

The people who made that presentation should be tried as heretics.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Both credentialed (PhD psychologists) self identified “faithful Catholic” speakers at a recent diocesan sponsed workshop on human sexuality when addressing effective strategies to reach adolescents, stated their opinion that there is need for “open dialogue” amongst Church ministers regarding the pastoral prudence and licitness of explaining to kids the use of contraception, as an option, should the kids not yet suscribe to abstinence only programming. This encompassing prescription/approach was offered as superseeding/bypassing the moral wrong of contraception due to the health and pregnancy risks of having “unprotected” sex (either oral or vaginal). …

I think the Church needs to preach a consistent message regarding ABC and premarital sex. Teenagers deserve to hear the truth. Of course teenagers still have the option of ignoring Church teachings–God gives us free will and therefore sin is an “option”, but not a good option.

I understand wanting to save adolescence the consequence of their wrong choices. But I don’t think that does either society or the individual any good. Sometimes the consequences of sin are a form of God’s mercy.

I know consequences of sin as forms of God’s mercy sounds weird, but consider the pregnant teen who loving gives her child up for adoption. Or the teenage couple who rises above the odds and successfully raise a wonderful child. Getting pregnant often shakes people awake to what they are doing and can help them reform their lives. Getting an STD isn’t as beautiful or inspiring as a newborn baby, but STD’s may also serve as wake-up calls. STD’s physically demonstrate the *spriritual *dangers of not using sex the way God designed. If bad behavior goes uncorrected, usually the problems get worse, not better.

There are consequences to sin. Trying to separate adolescents sexual sin from the consequences of sin isn’t wise or merciful.

 

[gardenswithkids]

…The well taken point of the presenters was that how can you love the God of the Law unless you first understand and encounter Him through your lived life experience and encounter with those who are His representatives and presence here in this life’s journey? Love is more than an intellectual ascent, but must also take on real flesh through relationships with others.

…I believe to come to a fuller understanding and appreication that we are made in the image and likeness of God as enfleshed spiritual being, and moral in nature. Many millennial folks have no such inklings or appreciation or proper understanding as such …Would you not agree with this in your encounters with the young, and largely unchurched millennial (High School graduates year 2000 and beyond) Catholics in our midst?

This all makes sense, but what doesn’t make sense is teaching contraception along with this.

I agree, we need to preach the God of Love, but this message is inconsistent with the God of Love. The God of Love teaches us to love others as He loves. Contraception and pre-marital sex don’t teach that. Yes, love takes on human flesh; it does it quite literally through the sexual act which God wants reserved for husband and wife. Contraception tries to prevent making love from making human flesh. Yes, I also agree many young people have no such inkling or proper understanding of these things–and I would take that statement farther and say few adults do either.

 

[setter]

I think the Church needs to preach a consistent message regarding ABC and premarital sex. Teenagers deserve to hear the truth. Of course teenagers still have the option of ignoring Church teachings–God gives us free will and therefore sin is an “option”, but not a good option.

I understand wanting to save adolescence the consequence of their wrong choices. But I don’t think that does either society or the individual any good. Sometimes the consequences of sin are a form of God’s mercy.

I know consequences of sin as forms of God’s mercy sounds weird, but consider the pregnant teen who loving gives her child up for adoption. Or the teenage couple who rises above the odds and successfully raise a wonderful child. Getting pregnant often shakes people awake to what they are doing and can help them reform their lives. Getting an STD isn’t as beautiful or inspiring as a newborn baby, but STD’s may also serve as wake-up calls. STD’s physically demonstrate the *spriritual *dangers of not using sex the way God designed. If bad behavior goes uncorrected, usually the problems get worse, not better.

There are consequences to sin. Trying to separate adolescents sexual sin from the consequences of sin isn’t wise or merciful.

I totally agree …but a radical and counter cultural message and reality …the Good News of Jesus Christ! I believe that the presenters have given into compromise and a watered down or misplaced sense of the gospel in its fullness.

 

[setter]

This all makes sense, but what doesn’t make sense is teaching contraception along with this.

I agree, and was suprised by the diversity of opinion in our Catholic audience which included clergy.

 

[fix]

True …your point?

Did the Church compromise in the past? Does pastoral include hiding the truth? As has been said many times only emphasizing part of the truth while downplaying another part of the truth makes the truth a lie.

The well taken point of the presenters was that how can you love the God of the Law unless you first understand and encounter Him through your lived life experience and encounter with those who are His representatives and presence here in this life’s journey? Love is more than an intellectual ascent, but must also take on real flesh through relationships with others.

Why make these things opposites?

Good question …I believe to come to a fuller understanding and appreication that we are made in the image and likeness of God as enfleshed spiritual being, and moral in nature. Many millennial folks have no such inklings or appreciation or proper understanding as such …Would you not agree with this in your encounters with the young, and largely unchurched millennial (High School graduates year 2000 and beyond) Catholics in our midst?

Again, there is nothing new under the sun. I fail to see why we must only accent one part of the truth. It is not and either/or issue. Why underestimate these young people?

Make sense now?

Not really.

 

[gardenswithkids]

I totally agree …but a radical and counter cultural message and reality …the Good News of Jesus Christ! I believe that the presenters have given into compromise and a watered down or misplaced sense of the gospel in its fullness.

I think when it comes to the Church teachings on sexuality, a big part of the problem is that people separate them from the rest of the teachings. They are part of the whole. If we leave them out or try to ignore them, we ignore part of the Gospel message. If we focus only on the “laws” without sharing the about how they relates to “love” we aren’t sharing the whole Gospel either.

 

[gardenswithkids]

I agree, and was suprised by the diversity of opinion in our Catholic audience which included clergy.

It surprises me that diversity of opinion in a Catholic audience surprises you.

I can see how at first glance the approach presented by the speakers may seem okay to many in the audience–especially since the speakers have the microphone. No one wants to see kids get pregnant out of wedlock or STDs. I reached the conclusion that I made that the consequences of sin can be a mercy of God because I have seen positive results come out of such awkward situations.

Again, part of the whole teachings–God is merciful and good. If God allows anything bad to happen to any of us, it is because He is strong enough to bring something even better out of it. God brought good out of the Crucifixion–that’s one of the most basics parts of our faith. Christians should not fear crosses because the cross brings salvation.