Birth Control and Infallibility

[itsjustdave1988]

I find it easier to go with the self-identification than to side with one of the various Catholic factions

Think of it this way… being baptized makes you Catholic. However, Catholic citizenship comes in many variants. Some humbly attempt to follow Heb 13:17 and “obey their leaders.” (good citizens). Others are rebels (eg. Luther), and start their own community. Still others claim Catholic citizenship for themselves yet reject the responsbilities that come with Catholic citizenship. They willfully disobey, for example, Catholic canon law and the constitutions of the Catholic Church. These are criminal. Catholics? Yes. But criminal just the same.

It would be similar to those U.S. citizen who insist they are patriotic citizens while simply willfully disobeying US law and the US Constitution. US citizens? Yes. But criminal just the same.

In my view, those who claim for themselves the benefits of citizenship while willfully disobeying the responsibilities inherent to citizenship, lack integrity, whether we speak of US citizenship or Catholic citizenship.

 

[Aquarius]

itsjustdave1988:

Think of it this way… being baptized makes you Catholic. However, Catholic citizenship comes in many variants. Some humbly attempt to follow Heb 13:17 and “obey their leaders.” (good citizens). Others are rebels (eg. Luther), and start their own community. Still others claim Catholic citizenship for themselves yet reject the responsbilities that come with Catholic citizenship. They willfully disobey, for example, Catholic canon law and the constitutions of the Catholic Church. These are criminal. Catholics? Yes. But criminal just the same.

It would be similar to those U.S. citizen who insist they are patriotic citizens while simply willfully disobeying US law and the US Constitution. US citizens? Yes. But criminal just the same.

In my view, those who claim for themselves the benefits of citizenship while willfully disobeying the responsibilities inherent to citizenship, lack integrity, whether we speak of US citizenship or Catholic citizenship.

I acknowledge this is the view of one of the Catholic factions.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Aquarius:

I acknowledge this is the view of one of the Catholic factions.

LOL!!! Do you mean the Catholic “faction” which authored Catholic canon law and the Constitution of the Catholic Church?

 

[Aquarius]

itsjustdave1988:

LOL!!! Do you mean the Catholic “faction” which authored Catholic canon law and the Constitution of the Catholic Church?

I really didn’t know there was a Constitution. What does it cover?

I can’t say if you are in the faction that authored the constitution and canon law. Are you?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Here’s what one “faction” of the Catholic Church insists upon:

Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 892 scborromeo.org/ccc/para/892.htm :

“To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.”

Code of Canon Law, canon 752:

“a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.”

Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, *Lumen Gentium, *25:

In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

It’s a lot like that wacky “faction” of the US that presume to call themselves the “legislative branch” and the “executive branch” and the “judicial branch” of the US government. Who cares what that “faction” thinks, it’s MY opinion that defines US law, right?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Here’s what another wacky faction of Catholicism insists upon:

Hebrews 13:17 “Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.”

Those pesky Catholic “factions” are always insisting upon something or rather. They speak as though they’ve been given some kind of authority or something…as if they were the “pillar and foundation of truth.” (1 Tim 3:15).

 

[Aquarius]

itsjustdave1988:

Here’s what one “faction” of the Catholic Church insists upon:

Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 892 scborromeo.org/ccc/para/892.htm :

Code of Canon Law, canon 752:

Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, *Lumen Gentium, *25:

It’s a lot like that wacky “faction” of the US that presume to call themselves the “legislative branch” and the “executive branch” and the “judicial branch” of the US government. Who cares what that “faction” thinks, it’s MY opinion that defines US law, right?

Can I presume you don’t like other factions of the Church being recognized as existing? That’s fine. I take that as the views of one faction.

When I cross US law, I am prevented from doing that. I don’t see the bishops doing anything about the vast majority of Catholics who have rejected ABC teachings.

Don’t catholics think the HS guides the Church? Is he allowed to provide guidance through the laity?

 

[Aquarius]

itsjustdave1988:

Here’s what another wacky faction of Catholicism insists upon:

Hebrews 13:17 “Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.”

Those pesky Catholic “factions” are always insisting upon something or rather. They speak as though they’ve been given some kind of authority or something…as if they were the “pillar and foundation of truth.” (1 Tim 3:15).

Why do you consider that faction wacky?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Aquarius:

Can I presume you don’t like other factions of the Church being recognized as existing? That’s fine. I take that as the views of one faction.

When I cross US law, I am prevented from doing that. I don’t see the bishops doing anything about the vast majority of Catholics who have rejected ABC teachings.

The Church consistently teaches the truth on the matter. It is up to the people of God to either accept it or reject it. There are consequences, however, for willful disobedience to the “pillar and foundation of truth.” See the lask book of the Bible for more on this.

Don’t catholics think the HS guides the Church?

Yes.

Is he allowed to provide guidance through the laity?

He does. Whether they obey that guidance is another thing altogether.

 

[Aquarius]

itsjustdave1988:

The Church consistently teaches the truth on the matter. It is up to the people of God to either accept it or reject it. There are consequences, however, for willful disobedience to the “pillar and foundation of truth.” See the lask book of the Bible for more on this.

Yes.

He does. Whether they obey that guidance is another thing altogether.

I wonder what faction he belongs to?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Aquarius:

Why do you consider that faction wacky?

That was sarcasm. You seem to think “factions” have defined dogma, doctrine, and Scritpure. I disagree.

For example, I’m in the USAF. My opinion with regard to AF Doctrine is simply that, an opinion. It does not define USAF Doctrine. We have an “office” that defines USAF Doctrine, called the Doctrine Center. You may presume that office is merely another faciton within the USAF, but that’s absurd. It is an office which derives its authority from the Chief of Staff of the USAF.

My opinion regarding doctrine does not define doctrine for the USAF. Likewise, Catholic opinion regarding doctrine does not define Catholic doctrine. There’s an office for that, which derives its authority from the Vicar of Christ.

Are you Catholic? You seem very unfamiliar with Catholic ecclesiology as taught by the magisterium.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Aquarius:

I wonder what faction he belongs to?

He’s part of the faction that has consistently taught Catholics for 2000 years that contraception is immoral.

 

[Sherlock]

Aquarius:

I acknowledge this is the view of one of the Catholic factions.

“Catholic factions”? Look, there are orthodox Catholics and there are heterodox dissenting Catholics. They don’t carry equal weight as equal “factions”. One group follows Church teaching, the other doesn’t and as such are more aptly referred to as dissenters, “Catholics-in-name-only” or, perhaps more accurately, “Protestants”. If someone self-identifies as a Catholic, then proceeds to tell me where he will not follow Church teaching, then his self-identification is simply wrong. He may have been baptized a Catholic, but is not living his faith. Therefore, in the interests of accuracy, he ought to call himself a dissenting Catholic and be done with it. However, given the poor state of catechesis in the last 40 years and the numbers of dissenting, heterodox priests, that person may simply be unaware of his faith and thus less culpable.

The acceptance of Catholic teaching is not a pick-and-choose affair. If you think it is, you are in the wrong Church.

 

[Aquarius]

itsjustdave1988:

That was sarcasm. You seem to think “factions” have defined dogma, doctrine, and Scritpure. I disagree.

For example, I’m in the USAF. My opinion with regard to AF Doctrine is simply that, an opinion. It does not define USAF Doctrine. We have an “office” that defines USAF Doctrine, called the Doctrine Center. You may presume that office is merely another faciton within the USAF, but that’s absurd. It is an office which derives its authority from the Chief of Staff of the USAF.

My opinion regarding doctrine does not define doctrine for the USAF. Likewise, Catholic opinion regarding doctrine does not define Catholic doctrine. There’s an office for that, which derives its authority from the Vicar of Christ.

Are you Catholic? You seem very unfamiliar with Catholic ecclesiology as taught by the magisterium.

I said nothing about defined dogma, doctrine, or scripture. Where did you get that?

Glad you get on so well with the brass.

 

[Aquarius]

“Catholic factions”? Look, there are orthodox Catholics and there are heterodox dissenting Catholics. They don’t carry equal weight as equal “factions”. One group follows Church teaching, the other doesn’t and as such are more aptly referred to as dissenters, “Catholics-in-name-only” or, perhaps more accurately, “Protestants”. If someone self-identifies as a Catholic, then proceeds to tell me where he will not follow Church teaching, then his self-identification is simply wrong. He may have been baptized a Catholic, but is not living his faith. Therefore, in the interests of accuracy, he ought to call himself a dissenting Catholic and be done with it. However, given the poor state of catechesis in the last 40 years and the numbers of dissenting, heterodox priests, that person may simply be unaware of his faith and thus less culpable.

The acceptance of Catholic teaching is not a pick-and-choose affair. If you think it is, you are in the wrong Church.

Sounds like you just described factions.

 

[OhioBob]

Aquarius:

I said nothing about defined dogma, doctrine, or scripture. Where did you get that?

You lost me there. If these “factions” you refer to are not formed around differences regarding dogma, doctrine or scriptural interpretation, then what defines them?

 

[otm]

Aquarius:

I can’t dispute those things are not factors, but I think you left out a very important aspect of the situation. Couples have first hand experience in their marriages, with kids, each other, sexuality, etc. From this experience, many of them firmly believe that ABC is not only acceptable, but necessary in some cases. Their human experience does not conform to official teachings.

Some may not want to be confused by the facts, but others bring facts to the table which the teachings don’t want to consider. These folks do wonder if anyone is listening to them as the people in Rome make policy, and they are convinced that they know more about their marriage and family situation than anyone in a policy making position.

So, I think you may be selling the people short in casting them as unthinking robots molded and sent on their way by modern society. There is a great deal of thought and consideration on the ABC issue, and much of it is very intelligent, informed, educated, and insightful.

The people simply think Rome is wrong, and the lack of a firm, official, and very visible stamp of infallibility lends credence to that idea. It looks like the door is being kept open to allow for future change.

I am a firm believer that one has to follow one’s conscience. I am also a believer that when a conscience is out of sync with the Church’s teaching, that the individual is called to continue to seek the truth, to continue to enter into dialogue, to continue to search, and to cary this constantly in prayer.

Sadly, my findings are that most do not. I have had too many experiences concerning this and other moral issues in people’s lives, and it leaves me somewhat disheartened. when most don’t even want to discuss the issue, I find it hard to believe that they are seeking to achieve a correctly formed conscience, which is what the Church calls us to.

I can’t make the decision of whether or not NFP would work for any given person, but I have met some who felt that they had no option buyt to use ABC. most of them made the decision when either NFP had not been created, or was almost unkown - the rythm method was all that was available. I spoke with one the other night; in her 60’s now; had four children and was borderline either physical or mental breakdown after the fourth. She felt she had no other option. Given that I have no idea of the dynamics of her marriage, I have no way of saying that NFP would have worked had it been available.

None of that, however, changes the fact that the Church has said that it is objectively morally evil (ABC, just so I am clear), has said it consistently for 20 centuries, and my personal observation over a long time is that the Church knows what it is talking about.

 

[otm]

Aquarius:

OK. What was the last addition to the collection of the infallible from any source?

Again, i think you are asking the question in the wrong way.

John Paul 2 came out with a statement that it is not possible for the Church to ordain women. In spite of the fact that some have tried to “shoe horn” that into an ex cathedra statment, the Vatican (Ratzinger, at the time) said that it was not, but that it was simply the ellucidation of a 20 century holding. I don’t think that anyone could say that it was “added” , as it had been there for 20 centuries (and this was not the first time the question had been asked).

If you want to look for an “addition”, then you might look to the pronouncements of Vatican 2, since that was the last council, and for all practical purposes, theologians are generally in agreement that since then, no pope has made an ex cathedra statement (but see, above, the citation to the article by Fr. Brian W Harrison, O.S. re: the book by Fr. Ermenegildo Lio, O.F.M. to the contrary).

 

[otm]

Aquarius:

The bottom line is one of those questions best answered, “I don’t know.”

I would not limit euthanasia to the emotionally driven. Many have very carefully thought through the issue for themselves and others. As people become more educated, reflective, and informed, that well formed conscience will no longer be a rubber stamp; it will really be something that is formed, not just accepted.

Rejection of Church teachings on various matters does not have to be unthinking. It can be the result of time, study and prayer.

OK, then perhaps what you and I are discussing is the issue of whether or not the Holy Spirit truly protects the Church from error in matters of faith (doctrine) and morals. I accept that the holy Spirit does ( and no, I am not trying to play the trump card of “God said it, I believe it, and that ends it”); however, with that belief comes the issue of a correctly formed conscience. You might want to read what Vatican 2 had to say about conscience.

Vatican 2 does not call us to a rubber stamp approach to morality. But it does hold that the Church has the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals, and that a correctly formed conscience will be in accord with Church Teachings.

Back to the issue of euthanasia; no question that people ahve crefuloly thought through the isue. However, the Church teaches us that life is a gift from God and not under our control, that suffering has merit, that one is not required to suffer needlessly, but can take pain relieving drugs to relieve pain; that one can take enough (e.g. morphine) that one may be ultimately hastening death if it is taken to control the pain and not to commit suicide, and I could go on about the value system the Church teaches.

However, those who have committed suicide often do not have that value system. I am not suggesting that they have violated their consicence in persuing suicide, but rather that they do not have a correctly formed conscience to begin with.

Further, in the area of suicide, it is an act that runs contrary to one of our most basic natural urges, to protect and preserve our own life. Interestingly, many, if not most who approach suicide are under the influence of depression (often accompanied by pain). When the depression is treated, and when they are made to understand they are not a burden on their (children, spouse, family menmbers, society), the urge to suicide almost always goes away.

i am not suggesting that rejection of Church teachings is unthinking. I do, however, suggest that 1) self honesty is hard for most to achieve, and 2) because someone is thinking, even thinking hard, does not automatically mean they are thinking correctly.

Thinking that is driven by a self centered world view is not likely to cause one to become more Christ like, as in, emptying oneself for another. Or, as in, being other directed. Or, as in, being other directed. Being self centered pretty much causes one to make self cent3red decisions, which tend to reinforece the self centeredness.

 

[otm]

Aquarius:

Many who use ABC find they do enjoy the united unitive, procreative and pleasure of sex, and have no idea why someone else feels qualified to tell them they don’t.

That may be true. Or it may be true that their marriage is not as open to true communication as they might like to think (amazingly, many who think they have good communication, when given some simple exercises in communication, find they don’t).

Why is it so many men, when being honest about their sex life within marriage, respond along the lines that they feel they have to beg? And why is it so many women, when being honest about their sex life in marriage, feel that they are required to “put out”, that they are supposed to be sexually available at any, and most, given moments, and find sex to be less and act of communication and more an act of orgasm?

I am not willing to accept that marriages that are much over, say, about 5 years duration, are that open in communication, and sexually satisfying for those who use ABC. I have seen and heard way too much to believe that.