C
Calliso
Guest
Actually isn;t the commandment Thou shal not Murder? Murder is a legal term.
- Status
M
mark_a
Guest
This is the real stumbling block for most folks. They usually try to blame the Church’s faith theology teachings (ie the pope, Mary, confession, etc.) because folks know that the Church’s moral theology teachings are dead on, and the moral theology teachings have a much more drastic effect on their lives than the faith theology teachings.
My signature is a link to an article about the unchanging teachings of the Church regarding contraception and how very nearly all of Protestantism has turned a blind eye to contraception.
And who inspires turning a blind eye to any evil?
C
Calliso
Guest
I certainly donlt know that the Catholic church’s moral teachings are 100% correct. And I doubt most people that donlt believe really think that way either.
N
Newbie2
Guest
Exodus 20:13 from the NAB: “You shall not kill.”
C
Calliso
Guest
Well I have seen a few translations that list it is thou shall not murder. Which when you think about it makes a lot of sense considering the fact that according to the old testament the ancient Israelites did a lot of killing…
M
mark_a
Guest
Which teachings do you consider to be wrong?
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
I don’t believe it is categorized as immediate and material cooperation. I’ll have to check my Moral Theology texts at home to confirm.
C
Calliso
Guest
Well to be fair I donlt know all the teachings. But for the ones I know the teachings I consider perhaps untrue are mainly the sexual related ones. Like no masturbation, no orgasm outside the woman’s vagina and of course the big one no artifical contraceptives. My point was though is that most people in that donlt agree with those teachings aren;t secretly thinking well I know they are true I just dontl want to follow them. And what I have noticed with my readings on this subject is that some people follow the teachings but donlt really agree with them. But they follow them because of the small chance they are mortal sins or whatever.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
I dissented with the Church for decades on this issue. After gaining further perspective (with age), and a re-study of this issue, now its hard for me to believe I ever dissented with it.
For one, you might ask yourself how competent you are to claim the the passage of Scripture regarding Onanism does not prohibit birth control. Christian and Jewish interpretation in every century since the advent of Christ has been overwhelming clear on this passage.
For instance, according to even Jewish interpretation of Holy Scripture, Onanism, which included masturation as well as artificial birth control, is considered sinful. The Encylopedia Judaica (Vol. 4, p. 1054), states that on the basis of Gen. 38: 9-10, “the Talmud sternly inveighs against ‘bringing forth the seed in vain’, considering it a cardinal sin (Nid. 13a).” In the same Encyclopedia Judaica (Vol. 12, p. 1495), it is stated that the act of Onan "is taken . . . by the Talmud (Yev. 34b) to refer either to unnatural intercourse or (cf. Nid. 13a) to masturbation."
When I was a young man, still dissenting with Catholic doctrine, I used every opinion I could find against Church teaching on this, but my motives were rather muddled. I was not dispassionately seeking the truth, but seeking ammo to bolster my argument, self-rationalizing my behavior. I too read the relevant Scritpure passage on Onanism and found alternative interpretations which agreed with me.
However, at a certain point I realized that at my young age, I haven’t really spend sufficient time studiing Scritpure, certainly not sufficient enough to confidently reject 2000 years of Scritpure study put forth by centuries of men and women who have been studying Scripture in the original ancient languages, who turns out were constant in their conclusion that Onanism is indeed the same misdeed as coitus interruptus and articial birth control.
I suppose I got to a point in my life where the wisdom of 2000 years seemed way more convincing than my mere few years of studying the matter.
For clarity, there are licit means to responsibly regulate birth. The Church teaches against using illicit means. NFP is the most effective means of regulating birth, and unlike other artificial means, it has no unhealthy side effects.
I did find it rather suspicious that ALL Christianity until 1930 believed coitus interruptus and various other artificial means of birth control was a grave sin. Moral compromise with modernity seems at work, rather than a dispassionate attempt to conform one’s behavior to that which is true and good, the wisdom of the ages.
M
mark_a
Guest
Since you used the word “perhaps” maybe there is some room for further investigation. The Church has studied these things upside down and inside out and has not changed her teachings.
The Church gets no jollies from telling people these truths. Its a painful job for the Church. Pope Paul VI kept the Church’s teachings faithful to history in the face of enormous pressure from within the Church.
These teachings are tough in a permissive society.
But the fact remains that before 1930, no church taught that contraception was ok and in fact taught it was evil! In Protestantism contraception is no longer even a question. Who changed? Many offer classes about the different methods and don’t even teach that certain methods are abortificients. And what a double standard it is for those women on the pill to be praying at the neighborhood abortion mill.
Maybe you would be open to doing a little more research, and if you still don’t agree with the teachings, so be it.
Just think how things may have turned out for Adam and Eve even if they didn’t agree, but were obedient.
M
mark_a
Guest
Good stuff Dave. Thanks.
N
Newbie2
Guest
It’s a point that’s rather moot when discussing BC; purposefully causing the death of a young human embryo through chemical or other means is destroying a living human being, which is murder.
Whether we call it killing or murder, the sin is the same.
- Status