Any Catholics around who reject a teaching or two? Post here!

[Gabriel_Serafin]

Can I ask, is there any form of contraception that the Church does allow and if so why?

No. The Church condems the use of artificial contraception. The Church only allows natural family planning in cases of severe hardship, but this entails abstinence from sexual intercourse during ovulation, which is a sacrifice for the couple—as opposed to artificial contraception which uses devices to thwart conception even though the act of sexual intercourse is completed. You should listen to the audio links I supplied, it will shock you into realizing the real evil which artificial contraception has brought into the world from the late 1960s until today.

Incidentally, up until 1930 all Christian denominations condemned the use of artificial contraception as a great evil. It wasn’t until the Anglican Church (the Church of England founded by King Henry VIII) gathered in their Lambeth Conference in 1930 and sanctioned the use of contraception for only “rare and extreme cases”. But shortly after allowed it at will, and 40 years later all Christian denominations followed suit endorsing the widespread use of artificial contraception as a perfectly moral thing to do.

One need only read the Papal Encyclical Humanae Vitae to realize the prophetic warning given by Pope Paul VI in the 1960s have all come true: the evil consequences of artificial contraception plagues society today. Listen to the talks.

 

[tafan]

How can cremation effect the process anyway? Since the body decomposes if not cremated.

I was once told that in a certain country they started cremating deliberately because the catholics were sensitive to it. It was like a cruel attack on their beliefs.

You’ve got a good point there, I never considered that. I suppose all you could have done was ask the priest? But even the priest at my Church (of which there are two) spouts personal opinions rather that doctrinal fact. Making it harder all the more so.

Lots of different opinions on this thread about why cremation was at one time considered a sin. So I might as well through in my two cents, the above is the closest.

To my knowledge, and I am almost positive I am correct, the Church never taught that cremation itself was objectively wrong. What the Church did was have a law that prohibited cremation. This certainly made it a grevious sin to cremate someone, but that is because one was disobeying a law of the Church.

The Church never held, as others have posted, that the creamated could not be resurrected and the Church has always understood we all “return to dust”. Let us not assume our fathers in the faith were that dumb.

And why did the Church make this law? It was always the widespread custim in Christendom to bury the dead, not to burn them. And it did have a little bit of religion basis, as it was thought this was more respectful of the body. It became fashionable, in the 18th century among the intellectual elite who were becoming boldly anti-Catholic, to have themselves cremated as a statement of faith in atheism. It was done as a way of saying they denied the resurrection. And at one time, that is how all of Europe viewed cremation, as a final rejection of a key Christian doctrine. It was in reaction to that that the Church prohibited cremation. It was not because Catholics were sensitive to it, it was because Catholics were not allowed to deny the resurrection of the body.

Hence, even today, the Church allows cremation as long as this denial is not the reason for doing so.

 

[Zundrah]

No. The Church condems the use of artificial contraception. The Church only allows natural family planning in cases of severe hardship, but this entails abstinence from sexual intercourse during ovulation, which is a sacrifice for the couple—as opposed to artificial contraception which uses devices to thwart conception even though the act of sexual intercourse is completed. You should listen to the audio links I supplied, it will shock you into realizing the real evil which artificial contraception has brought into the world from the late 1960s until today.

Incidentally, up until 1930 all Christian denominations condemned the use of artificial contraception as a great evil. It wasn’t until the Anglican Church (the Church of England founded by King Henry VIII) gathered in their Lambeth Conference in 1930 and sanctioned the use of contraception for only “rare and extreme cases”. But shortly after allowed it at will, and 40 years later all Christian denominations followed suit endorsing the widespread use of artificial contraception as a perfectly moral thing to do.

One need only read the Papal Encyclical Humanae Vitae to realize the prophetic warning given by Pope Paul VI in the 1960s have all come true: the evil consequences of artificial contraception plagues society today. Listen to the talks.

Lots of different opinions on this thread about why cremation was at one time considered a sin. So I might as well through in my two cents, the above is the closest.

To my knowledge, and I am almost positive I am correct, the Church never taught that cremation itself was objectively wrong. What the Church did was have a law that prohibited cremation. This certainly made it a grevious sin to cremate someone, but that is because one was disobeying a law of the Church.

The Church never held, as others have posted, that the creamated could not be resurrected and the Church has always understood we all “return to dust”. Let us not assume our fathers in the faith were that dumb.

And why did the Church make this law? It was always the widespread custim in Christendom to bury the dead, not to burn them. And it did have a little bit of religion basis, as it was thought this was more respectful of the body. It became fashionable, in the 18th century among the intellectual elite who were becoming boldly anti-Catholic, to have themselves cremated as a statement of faith in atheism. It was done as a way of saying they denied the resurrection. And at one time, that is how all of Europe viewed cremation, as a final rejection of a key Christian doctrine. It was in reaction to that that the Church prohibited cremation. It was not because Catholics were sensitive to it, it was because Catholics were not allowed to deny the resurrection of the body.

Hence, even today, the Church allows cremation as long as this denial is not the reason for doing so.

I want to ask you both something

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

I want to ask you both something

Sure go ahead. Ask and you shall receive

 

[Zundrah]

Sure go ahead. Ask and you shall receive

What I want to know is if these are considered to be an infallible part of Catholic teaching;

Women not being legible to ordination as a priest.

Also this subject;

By marriage a man and woman grant to one another certain rights
over their bodies for the begetting of children

I’m addressing the obligations that are expected from the spouse.

Then there is one other thing but I’m not so sure if I’ll bring it up yet.

Thank you for helping.

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

What I want to know is if these are considered to be an infallible part of Catholic teaching;

Women not being legible to ordination as a priest.

Yes this is an infallible teaching. Fatherhood is a git to men as motherhood is a gift to women alone. Priests father spiritual children.

By marriage a man and woman grant to one another certain rights
over their bodies for the begetting of children.

I’m addressing the obligations that are expected from the spouse.

The abstaining from sexual intercourse for natural family planning is a mutual choice between the spouses.

 

[Zundrah]

Yes this is an infallible teaching. Fatherhood is a git to men as motherhood is a gift to women alone. Priests father spiritual children.

Alright then, thank you.

The abstaining from sexual intercourse for natural family planning is a mutual choice between the spouses.

Yes, but only if they both agree, I understand.

The other one I had on my mind was about this (and I can’t recall fully) idea that kids under the age of 7 or something cannot go to hell for any act they commit at all. Is that correct?

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

The other one I had on my mind was about this (and I can’t recall fully) idea that kids under the age of 7 or something cannot go to hell for any act they commit at all. Is that correct?

The age of 7 is generally considered the age of reason—when a person knows the reality between right and wrong and can choose to do an evil act. So yes, it is possible for children to go to hell, just read the news about what some wicked children are doing these days. But ultimately each individual’s judgment is in God’s hands and He is perfectly just. What’s more, not everyone’s hell will be the same measure; obviously an adulterer’s penalty is different than that of a thief or a serial murderer…

When you understand what makes up a mortal sin, which separates a soul from God, you will understand how it is possible for even the young to lose their soul.

 

[Zundrah]

The age of 7 is generally considered the age of reason—when a person knows the reality between right and wrong and can choose to do an evil act. So yes, it is possible for children to go to hell, just read the news about what some wicked children are doing these days. But ultimately each individual’s judgment is in God’s hands and He is perfectly just. What’s more, not everyone’s hell will be the same measure; obviously an adulterer’s penalty is different than that of a thief or a serial murderer…

When you understand what makes up a mortal sin, which separates a soul from God, you will understand how it is possible for even the young to lose their soul.

Yeah, they can be malicious… with words especially.

So is this general idea considered infallible?

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

Yeah, they can be malicious… with words especially.

So is this general idea considered infallible?

It is an infallible teaching that there is a hell; as for who goes there is for God to judge, thus the judgment will be just. But ultimately, people send themselves to hell, because hell is simply a separation from God. God is Truth, Goodness and Love itself. The human intellect is made for Truth (God), and the human will is made for Goodness and Love (God.)

Thus the willful misuse of the gifts of intellect and will brings sin into the world. Sin separates us from God, but true and sincere repentance restores our relationship with God.

 

[tafan]

What I want to know is if these are considered to be an infallible part of Catholic teaching;

Women not being legible to ordination as a priest.

Also this subject;

I’m addressing the obligations that are expected from the spouse.

Then there is one other thing but I’m not so sure if I’ll bring it up yet.

Thank you for helping.

Women not being open to ordination: certainly an infallible (and hence unchanging teaching).

Obligations expected of a spouse: I would assume it would be infallible, since it is integral to the idea of Christian marriage and (more importantly) it has been taught universally by the bishops of the Church (which makes it part of the infallible ordinary magisterium).

As to the marital debt: look at it this way.

I am amazed I have posted on this topic so much. Before coming to this forum, I had no idea this was even a controversial issue, as it seems the most natural thing in the world.
It applies to men as well as women, and let me admit: as men age, our sex drive does not always remain at the same level. The following is not a unique situation for me: I am up in bed reading, and my wife, after getting ready for bed, walks over and shuts the bedroom door and turns the lock (ok, I assume all married individuals have their ways of communicating these requests). Now, most of the time, what goes through my mind is “all right!!!”, but occasionally I am not really in the mood. But it would seem like the most cruel thing imaginable for me to say “not tonight dear, I just don’t feel like it”. And that is all the Church is saying, it is cruel, it is sinful toward your spouse to do so. Conversely, if when I get in bed and I give my wife that little look and she just said, “no” with no reason at all, it would be very painful. Why? Because she just rejected me for absolutely no reason. That is wrong. That is what the church is saying.

I ask honestly, why is this so difficult to accept?

 

[Zundrah]

Women not being open to ordination: certainly an infallible (and hence unchanging teaching).

Obligations expected of a spouse: I would assume it would be infallible, since it is integral to the idea of Christian marriage and (more importantly) it has been taught universally by the bishops of the Church (which makes it part of the infallible ordinary magisterium).

As to the marital debt: look at it this way.

I am amazed I have posted on this topic so much. Before coming to this forum, I had no idea this was even a controversial issue, as it seems the most natural thing in the world.
It applies to men as well as women

I understand that.

, and let me admit: as men age, our sex drive does not always remain at the same level. The following is not a unique situation for me: I am up in bed reading, and my wife, after getting ready for bed, walks over and shuts the bedroom door and turns the lock (ok, I assume all married individuals have their ways of communicating these requests). Now, most of the time, what goes through my mind is “all right!!!”, but occasionally I am not really in the mood. But it would seem like the most cruel thing imaginable for me to say “not tonight dear, I just don’t feel like it”. And that is all the Church is saying, it is cruel, it is sinful toward your spouse to do so. Conversely, if when I get in bed and I give my wife that little look and she just said, “no” with no reason at all, it would be very painful. Why? Because she just rejected me for absolutely no reason. That is wrong. That is what the church is saying.

I ask honestly, why is this so difficult to accept?

Because it is like having no control over your own body.

 

[St_Francis]

…The other one I had on my mind was about this (and I can’t recall fully) idea that kids under the age of 7 or something cannot go to hell for any act they commit at all. Is that correct?

You seem to be asking if it is infallable teaching that children under the age of seven are incapable of going to hell?

I would say this is not infallable teaching. I have never run across anything which implied that it was, and I have run across discussions involving the age of 7 and the use of reason, discussions which involved people more learned than I but additionally, given the historical material I have read and everything I have run across, it doesn’t have the “feel” of an infallable teaching. The Church talks about things in this subject area very carefully.

This relates to judging: we cannot judge the state of a person’s soul (except for saints *after death, and even that, apparently, is not considered infallable). The Church does not teach that any particular person is in Hell, for example. So I cannot see the Church saying something like that, esp infallably.

 

[Zundrah]

You seem to be asking if it is infallable teaching that children under the age of seven are incapable of going to hell?

I would say this is not infallable teaching. I have never run across anything which implied that it was, and I have run across discussions involving the age of 7 and the use of reason, discussions which involved people more learned than I but additionally, given the historical material I have read and everything I have run across, it doesn’t have the “feel” of an infallable teaching. The Church talks about things in this subject area very carefully.

This relates to judging: we cannot judge the state of a person’s soul (except for saints *after death, and even that, apparently, is not considered infallable). The Church does not teach that any particular person is in Hell, for example. So I cannot see the Church saying something like that, esp infallably.

I’ll take your word for it then. Thanks.

 

[Zundrah]

It is an infallible teaching that there is a hell; as for who goes there is for God to judge, thus the judgment will be just. But ultimately, people send themselves to hell, because hell is simply a separation from God. God is Truth, Goodness and Love itself. The human intellect is made for Truth (God), and the human will is made for Goodness and Love (God.)

Thus the willful misuse of the gifts of intellect and will brings sin into the world. Sin separates us from God, but true and sincere repentance restores our relationship with God.

Why did the Church come up with the idea then? About the kids. What brought it about?

And thank you again, for helping me out.

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

Why did the church come up with the idea then? About the kids. What brought it about? And thank you again, for helping me out.

I suppose because people asked. Why else. I don’t see it as the Church coming up with the idea as a teaching, but rather as theologians pondering the question. One thing is for sure; there is a hell and people of all ages probably go there, because people of all ages do wicked things.

 

[tafan]

The other one I had on my mind was about this (and I can’t recall fully) idea that kids under the age of 7 or something cannot go to hell for any act they commit at all. Is that correct?

I am rather skeptical that the commonly accepted age of reason being 7 is an infallible church teaching. I have never seen it presented as an absolute. And even if then, the Church would certainly admit that while children may reach an age where they can realize an action is sinful, they still would not understand that it is a mortal sin and all that it entails. There are three requirements for a mortal sin. As our consciences develope, we understand some actions are grave matter, and still don’t understand other actions are grave matter.

What is the exact issue you have with this idea? Certainly you would admit that children, below a certain age, cannot understand that actions are mortally sinful and all that it implies.

If I understand correctly, you have three teachings of the church that are problematic for you and driving you away from the Church: women not being ordained, the marital debt, and the age of reason? The latter 2 seem to represent simple common sense and human experience. The first one, invalidity of ordination of women, is the same for me; but I can understand how it would be problematic for some.

 

[Zundrah]

I suppose because people asked. Why else. I don’t see it as the Church coming up with the idea as a teaching, but rather as theologians pondering the question.

Fair enough.

 

[Zundrah]

I am rather skeptical that the commonly accepted age of reason being 7 is an infallible church teaching. I have never seen it presented as an absolute. And even if then, the Church would certainly admit that while children may reach an age where they can realize an action is sinful, they still would not understand that it is a mortal sin and all that it entails. There are three requirements for a mortal sin. As our consciences develope, we understand some actions are grave matter, and still don’t understand other actions are grave matter.

What is the exact issue you have with this idea? Certainly you would admit that children, below a certain age, cannot understand that actions are mortally sinful and all that it implies.

If I understand correctly, you have three teachings of the church that are problematic for you and driving you away from the Church: women not being ordained, the marital debt, and the age of reason? The latter 2 seem to represent simple common sense and human experience. The first one, invalidity of ordination of women, is the same for me; but I can understand how it would be problematic for some.

I only wanted to ask if the three points I mentioned were considered infallible or not.

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

I only wanted to ask if the three points I mentioned were considered infallible or not.

I would suggest studying the Catechism—or listening to the free online audio catechism put out by Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen.You can click on the topic and he speaks in depth about each subject for 20 minutes. Here is the link: AUDIO CATECHISM SERIES.