American Bishop: "The Use Of Contraceptives, Of Course, Is Always Morally Evil"

  • Thread starter Thread starter WanderAimlessly
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

WanderAimlessly

Guest
Another bishop stands up to the Culture of Perversion (from LifeSiteNews):
American Bishop: "The Use Of Contraceptives, Of Course, Is Always Morally Evil"

PHOENIX, July 26, 2005 (LifeSiteNews) - Phoenix Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, one of the most courageous bishops in the United States, notes in a recent column in the diocesan paper, The Catholic Sun, that “The use of contraceptives, of course, is always morally evil and many of them have harmful side effects as well.”

The teaching comes in light of Natural Family Planning Awareness Week, celebrated July 24 - 30, 2005. This special event was begun several years ago by the American Academy of NFP (now American Academy of FertilityCareTM Professionals) and is promoted by the Diocesan Development Program for NFP (DDP), a program of the Bishops’ Committee for Pro-Life Activities.

Beyond the death of a newly conceived human embryo which can occur with hormonal contraceptives, and beyond the harm to the mother that can ensue, Bishop Olmsted explains that artificial contraception harms the relationship between husband and wife. “To love totally in marriage means not withholding the fertile part of being a man or woman; that is, the wife gives all of her femininity and the husband gives all of his masculinity,” explains the bishop reflecting on the Theology of the Body expounded by the late Pope John Paul II.

“Should one or both resort to contraception, they would be withdrawing their fertility from the giving. They would not be giving their all,” he continued. “Such action not only makes procreation impossible (preventing cooperation with God in life-giving love) but also damages the bonds of love (harming the love-giving end). It is no surprise that many marriages are weak because of the use of contraception. Every time that a married couple uses contraception they withhold love from one another. The marital embrace then becomes solely focused on pleasure and is not the self-giving, unifying, and potentially fruitful act that God created it to be.”

Turning to NFP, the bishop wrote, “Does that mean that married couples must have as many children as possible? Not at all. In fact, by God’s design the marital embrace cannot always be fertile. The woman’s cycle goes through times of both fertility and infertility. In light of this God-given fact, spouses can plan their families by taking into account the fertile or non-fertile times.”

The July dates for the NFP awareness week were chosen to highlight the anniversary of the encyclical Humanae vitae (July 25).

Also picking up on the theme was St. Louis Archbishop Raymond L. Burke. Writing on the 1968 Encyclical Humanae Vitae, Archbishop Burke notes in a column in the diocesan paper the St. Louis Review that, “Thirty-seven years have passed since Pope Paul VI addressed the teaching of Christ to what must be called a universal crisis of marriage life and love, namely the widespread acceptance of the use of artificial contraception within the conjugal union.”

Burke explains that Paul VI, “cautioned about the breakdown of respect between a man and woman in marriage which is caused by the use of artificial contraception. He expressed especially his fear about the loss of the due respect for women which would result. He also noted the negative effect of the breakdown of observance of the moral law, especially among the young who are more easily tempted in such matters. What is more, he cautioned about the use of artificial contraception by political powers as a solution to what they view as national or international difficulties.”

See the columns by Bishop Olmsted and Archbishop Burke:
[diocesephoenix.org/bishop/homilies/Self…](http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jul/<a%20href=http://www.diocesephoenix.org/bishop/homilies/Self-GivingLove-HumanaeVitae-Pt2.htm>http://www.diocesephoenix.org/bishop/homilies/Self…)
[stlouisreview.com/abpcolumn.php](http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jul/<a%20href=http://www.stlouisreview.com/abpcolumn.php>http://www.stlouisreview.com/abpcolumn.php)

Story Link
Click to expand...
PF
 
That’s great to hear. On the other hand, it’s kind of sad when a Bishop supporting Catholic doctrine is news.
 
40.png
Genesis315:
That’s great to hear. On the other hand, it’s kind of sad when a Bishop supporting Catholic doctrine is news.
Click to expand...
Really, speak the truth, and you become a controversial figure, inside and outside of the Church.
 
40.png
fix:
We need at least 1000 more like him.
Click to expand...
He was very nice and gentle when I met him in connection with the Third Synod of Wichita Diocese. We really missed him when he moved to Phoenix and had quite a gap in leadership. So far I have been very pleased with our new bishop, though, bishop Jackel. (JAY-kle).

I have a question about terminology, though. It has come to my attention that logically, one cannot objectively determine the sinfulness or another person, or their culpability, or whatever. This being the case, we do not presume to infallibly judge people who commits what we normally call a “mortal sin.”

Bishop Thomas says that use of contraceptives is “always morally evil.”

My question is, what does that mean? It cannot mean that a particular behavior is objectively a mortal sin, can it? I thought the mortality of sin depended on the mental state of the “sinner.”

So my question is this. What does it mean when someone engages in an activity which is always evil, but is not mentally able to fully comprehend and therefore is not fully “culpable.”

What is the difference between being objectively guilty of committing a act which is always evil, and being culpable for a mortal sin?

For that matter, what’s the difference between being “guilty” of a mortal sin and being “culpable” for it? Can one receive Communion when one has done evil but is not culpable?

Alan
 
40.png
WanderAimlessly:
Another bishop stands up to the Culture of Perversion (from LifeSiteNews): PF
Click to expand...
I have cited this shamelessly orthodox Bishop in refuting the heterodox “pastoral counsel” that I have received by 2 priests in my own diocese on this very issue.
 
40.png
felra:
I have cited this shamelessly orthodox Bishop in refuting the heterodox “pastoral counsel” that I have received by 2 priests in my own diocese on this very issue.
Click to expand...
From the few times I met him, I got the impression he was also gentle, personable, and seemed like he always had a warm smile if not blatantly, then just below the surface trying to get out. He had no airs about him whatsoever, and could lose himself in a room full of strangers. He didn’t know me from Adam, but walked right up as if I’d called him, introduced himself, and struck up a conversation as if he actually cared about me.

In short, I and others I talked to have the sense when around him that they are near a holy man – a happy, loving, and friendly man, with this little mysterious twinkle in his eye like he was about ready to laugh at any given time. To me, that gives me a lot more confidence when he speak on Church issues than any amount of claimed orthodoxy.

It was a great pleasure to serve him during the Synod, and I am better for having known him.

Alan
 
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
I have a question about terminology, though. It has come to my attention that logically, one cannot objectively determine the sinfulness or another person, or their culpability, or whatever. This being the case, we do not presume to infallibly judge people who commits what we normally call a “mortal sin.”

Bishop Thomas says that use of contraceptives is “always morally evil.”

My question is, what does that mean? It cannot mean that a particular behavior is objectively a mortal sin, can it? I thought the mortality of sin depended on the mental state of the “sinner.”

So my question is this. What does it mean when someone engages in an activity which is always evil, but is not mentally able to fully comprehend and therefore is not fully “culpable.”

What is the difference between being objectively guilty of committing a act which is always evil, and being culpable for a mortal sin?

For that matter, what’s the difference between being “guilty” of a mortal sin and being “culpable” for it? Can one receive Communion when one has done evil but is not culpable?

Alan
Click to expand...
Contraception, within the congugal act-married or not, is intrinsically wrong as HV says. That means it ought never be done and is always evil. How culpable one is before God is another question, but it is always evil.
 
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
From the few times I met him, I got the impression he was also gentle, personable, and seemed like he always had a warm smile if not blatantly, then just below the surface trying to get out. He had no airs about him whatsoever, and could lose himself in a room full of strangers. He didn’t know me from Adam, but walked right up as if I’d called him, introduced himself, and struck up a conversation as if he actually cared about me.

In short, I and others I talked to have the sense when around him that they are near a holy man – a happy, loving, and friendly man, with this little mysterious twinkle in his eye like he was about ready to laugh at any given time. To me, that gives me a lot more confidence when he speak on Church issues than any amount of claimed orthodoxy.

It was a great pleasure to serve him during the Synod, and I am better for having known him.

Alan
Click to expand...
It is nice when the messenger is equally pleasing as the message. It can make challenging Church teachings more palpable to consider for some. But personally (and I hope for other Catholics striving to be faithful to the faith), my confidence comes from the “message” (communication in matters of faith & morals) being in union with the official Magesterium teaching of the Church. Otherwise, you are left with a highly subjective criteria (emotional) for discerning (picking & choosing?) what teaching is good for the soul.

It is like those high fiber, nutritional cereals that are not always as pleasing going down as some of the sugar coated one’s that fail to satisfy the nutritional requirements. But, it can become a matter of aqcquired taste if one keeps their focus on their long-term health.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top