Birth control

[LJN21]

It’s not a teaching of the Church that is infallible(ordinary or extraordinary magisterium), but merely private opinion based on a lack of trust in God’s will.

Agian says you…

Humanae Vitae is holds the same weight as Casti Connubii as far as infallible documents are concerned. Although I’m going to guess your going to blow that off as either opinion or worse a heretical work. The fact of the mater is you are taking the references to contraception and forcing them in your mold of “NFP is evil”. The Church has never held that periodic abstinence is wrong. You can thumb you nose at the Church all day long, but for the rest of us Catholics we have the authority of the Churches teachings behind us.

 

[Michael96]

No, I do not recognise or acknowledge the teaching on (non-abortive) birth control as infallible. And neither do many bishops and priests. It is your personal opinion that it is an infallible teaching. No Pope has declared it infallible and there is not full agreement amoungst the bishops (as you know the advice from the Papal Commission on Birth Control to Pope Paul VI before Humanae Vitae was for artificial BC to be allowed).

 

[SourGrape]

“Just cause,” “grave,” and “serious” reasons to use NFP with the intent to avoid conception must be considered by a married couple on a day to day basis. The temptation to avoid having a child can cause a Catholic couple to sinfully use NFP, especially given the fact that we (Americans and Westerners) live in such a materialistic culture where the majority of couples have two children at the most!

 

[LJN21]

“Just cause,” “serious,” and “grave” reason to practice NFP to avoid conception can be abused so easily by us weak and fallen humans, especially when we (Americans and Westerners) are living in such a materialistic culture where the majority of couples have two children at the most. All of us need to keep that in mind everyday and examine our reasons for “avoiding conception” whenever we do so.

I used to get all worried about how “grave” was “grave”, it became a major issue. I found this the other day ignatius.com/magazines/hprweb/bonilla.htm. Very interesting reading. It quited my worries about our intent to give ourselves a brake after having 4 kids in 4 years.

 

[LJN21]

No, I do not recognise or acknowledge the teaching on (non-abortive) birth control as infallible. And neither do many bishops and priests. It is your personal opinion that it is an infallible teaching. No Pope has declared it infallible and there is not full agreement amoungst the bishops (as you know the advice from the Papal Commission on Birth Control to Pope Paul VI before Humanae Vitae was for artificial BC to be allowed).

Priests and bishops do not have the authority to say whats infallible and whats not. The constant teaching of the Church is Contraception all forms is immoral (It does not differentiate between non abortive and abortive), this makes an infallible and binding teaching regardless if lay members, priests and bishops agree or not.

 

[LJN21]

lol Something I noticed in this document quote. I rearranged the emphasis form (name removed by moderator)'s post.

Why Mr. Issac would they exclude those things from “lawful means of regulating the number of children” if there are no lawful means for doing so?

 

[Michael96]

Priests and bishops do not have the authority to say whats infallible and whats not. The constant teaching of the Church is Contraception all forms is immoral (It does not differentiate between non abortive and abortive), this makes an infallible and binding teaching regardless if lay members, priests and bishops agree or not.

But we know there hasn’t been constant teaching by the Bishops - that’s the whole point (in fact Bishops and Cardinals were involved in the commision suggesting that the teaching *could *change, and recommended that it did change). But that’s all I’ll say as I know this is an area where people do not agree on whether there is infallibility or not and we’re likely to just go around and around in circles.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

Priests and bishops do not have the authority to say whats infallible and whats not. The constant teaching of the Church is Contraception all forms is immoral (It does not differentiate between non abortive and abortive), this makes an infallible and binding teaching regardless if lay members, priests and bishops agree or not.

Amen to that.

 

[LJN21]

But we know there hasn’t been constant teaching by the Bishops - that’s the whole point (in fact Bishops and Cardinals were involved in the commision suggesting that the teaching *could *change, and recommended that it did change). But that’s all I’ll say as I know this is on area where people do not agree on whether there is infallibility or not and we’re likely to just go around and around in circles.

That’s completely beside the point. Bishops and Cardinals can suggest stuff until they are blue in the face but it takes the Pope to agree for there to be any authority to their suggestions on Church teaching. The fact that the Pope then took that commission and upheld the traditional teaching of the Church is not to be ignored.

 

[SwizzleStick]

Other methods that are not abortificiant are:

Vasectomy
Tubal ligation
The cap

Personally I don’t have a problem with non-abortificiant methods; I think it can be quite a sensible decision, esepcially later in married life.

The Church is very clear on Her teachings. Artificial means to prevent conception are gravely sinful.

BTW, I’m “later in married life” and NFP works just fine for hubby and me.

 

[Michael96]

Thankyou for your prayers And of course I will also pray for you.