Can contracepting individuals expect to hear "Well done, good and faithful servant" when they stand before the Lord?

[pprimeau1976]

There is always the temptation to look with preumption at the other family members who have strayed from the estate …but, still …

But, still, what? Going about and telling someone who practices ABC or threatening them with hell is not the way to win over their heart for the Lord. If you know someone who practices ABC, pray that the Lord will open a door for you to speak honestly and openly about it. True conversion does not come from anybody bashing Humanae Vitae over someone’s head. It does not even come from calling someone a Cafeteria Catholic. I am sure in Jesus’ time, people were called Cafeteria Jews…they didn’t have cafeteria’s in Jesus’ time - but you get the point. And who called people Cafeteria Jews? I think you know the answer.

I think it was Patrick Madrid who recalled what St. Monica was told from her Bishop regarding her son, St. Augustine. “Speak to Augustine less about God and speak to God more about Augustine.” Likewise, talk to God more about ABC’ers rather than talking to and ABC’er about NFP. Note that I did not say be silent. Just know that God brings about changes, not you.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

But, still, what? Going about and telling someone who practices ABC or threatening them with hell is not the way to win over their heart for the Lord. If you know someone who practices ABC, pray that the Lord will open a door for you to speak honestly and openly about it. True conversion does not come from anybody bashing Humanae Vitae over someone’s head. It does not even come from calling someone a Cafeteria Catholic. I am sure in Jesus’ time, people were called Cafeteria Jews…they didn’t have cafeteria’s in Jesus’ time - but you get the point. And who called people Cafeteria Jews? I think you know the answer.

I think it was Patrick Madrid who recalled what St. Monica was told from her Bishop regarding her son, St. Augustine. “Speak to Augustine less about God and speak to God more about Augustine.” Likewise, talk to God more about ABC’ers rather than talking to and ABC’er about NFP. Note that I did not say be silent. Just know that God brings about changes, not you.

I will have to say that I disagree with the point that we should not inform others about the teachings of the Church. Is that not what Jesus did? If we do not share the truth about ABC and the consequences that there are then we are not sharing Jesus with them.

 

[pprimeau1976]

I will have to say that I disagree with the point that we should not inform others about the teachings of the Church. Is that not what Jesus did? If we do not share the truth about ABC and the consequences that there are then we are not sharing Jesus with them.

I just wanted to say that NO WHERE did I say that we should not inform. I just think that we should be humble enough to let God do the work. I even said pray for an opportunity to discuss it. I did not say don’t discuss it.

Do you think that YOU have the power to make a person change? If so, do me a favor and do my own examination of conscience for me! If so, talk to my wife who is pro ABC, whereas I am pro NFP!!!

Trust me, my friend, apologetics is WAY more than “informing” people of the Catholic faith. You have to know the best way to do it without deliberately labeling yourself as a religious nut, especially among the people you love the most in this world. Plus you have to do it in a way that does not jeopardize talents that could be put to good use for the Church.

There is alot more to apologetics that just INFORMING.

 

[cor]

The Church teaches differently:

None of your quote said it was an infallible teaching. There is a magisterial document that mentions some infallible moral teachings, but contraception is not included in them.

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

“Other examples of moral doctrines which are taught as definitive by the universal and ordinary Magisterium of the Church are: the teaching on the illicitness of prostitution35 and of fornication.”

The magisterium has not said in any document that the teaching against contraception is infallible. If the magisterium were eager to point it out, it would have been pointed out in the above document from the CDF, but only the examples of euthanasia, prostitution and fornication are mentioned as infallible teachings. For whatever reason, therefore, the magisterium is not eager to point it out. Why? Perhaps it’s because it’s not infallible. What other reason could there be? To not disturb the consciences of so many Catholics who would nevertheless disobey? Perhaps. What do you think?

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

I just wanted to say that NO WHERE did I say that we should not inform. I just think that we should be humble enough to let God do the work. I even said pray for an opportunity to discuss it. I did not say don’t discuss it.

Do you think that YOU have the power to make a person change? If so, do me a favor and do my own examination of conscience for me! If so, talk to my wife who is pro ABC, whereas I am pro NFP!!!

Trust me, my friend, apologetics is WAY more than “informing” people of the Catholic faith. You have to know the best way to do it without deliberately labeling yourself as a religious nut, especially among the people you love the most in this world. Plus you have to do it in a way that does not jeopardize talents that could be put to good use for the Church.

There is alot more to apologetics that just INFORMING.

Whoa, hold on, I struck a nerve and did mean to. deep breath What I was going at with my post was that we are not to beat them over the head constantly pounding it to them that they are wrong, but we are to inform. If that is a as simple as an informational brouchure or an email then we are informing them. Mind you, I feel that the best thing to do is to pray for them.

Can I make a person change their mind, no, that is there decision, but I can be a part of that change. I can be supportive, I can be helpful, informative to them. But ultimately it is their choice.

I apologize if my post came of the wrong way, it was not intended to be that way.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

None of your quote said it was an infallible teaching. There is a magisterial document that mentions some infallible moral teachings, but contraception is not included in them.

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

“Other examples of moral doctrines which are taught as definitive by the universal and ordinary Magisterium of the Church are: the teaching on the illicitness of prostitution35 and of fornication.”

The magisterium has not said in any document that the teaching against contraception is infallible. If the magisterium were eager to point it out, it would have been pointed out in the above document from the CDF, but only the examples of euthanasia, prostitution and fornication are mentioned as infallible teachings. For whatever reason, therefore, the magisterium is not eager to point it out. Why? Perhaps it’s because it’s not infallible. What other reason could there be? To not disturb the consciences of so many Catholics who would nevertheless disobey? Perhaps. What do you think?

From Humane Vitae, the denunciation of contraceptives of every kind is most clear: “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil.9

Here, the Church is explicitly rejecting such forms of contraception as the Pill, condoms, and spermicides.

 

[goofyjim]

No more so than anyone else who dies in the state of mortal sin.

 

[setter]

But, still, what?

You missed my subtle humor …

Going about and telling someone who practices ABC or threatening them with hell is not the way to win over their heart for the Lord.

It is not my job of evangelization threaten anyone with hell. My job is to be a mouthpiece for the Lord and proclaim and explain the truth of the Church’s teaching. The big problem is that so many wayward and dissenting Catholics claim ignorance on substantive matters of faith and morals. When is the last time that you heard a clear and convincing sermon on contraception, fornication, lust, pornography, lying, cohabitation, …or heard in the workplace or bleachers at your kids school basketball game the joys of NFP? Get my point?

If you know someone who practices ABC, pray that the Lord will open a door for you to speak honestly and openly about it.

Better yet, make a friend, be a friend, bring that firned to Christ formula for evangelization …and pray for their conversion.

True conversion does not come from anybody bashing Humanae Vitae over someone’s head. It does not even come from calling someone a Cafeteria Catholic. I am sure in Jesus’ time, people were called Cafeteria Jews…they didn’t have cafeteria’s in Jesus’ time - but you get the point. And who called people Cafeteria Jews? I think you know the answer.

There is a time and place for purposeful, uncompromising confrontation. Not in a argumentative, but unflinching stance with the truth, especially with those Catholics who knowingly, or unknowingly, are evangelizing for the kingdom of darkness by their scandalous words and/or actions, IMHO.

I think it was Patrick Madrid who recalled what St. Monica was told from her Bishop regarding her son, St. Augustine. “Speak to Augustine less about God and speak to God more about Augustine.” Likewise, talk to God more about ABC’ers rather than talking to and ABC’er about NFP. Note that I did not say be silent. Just know that God brings about changes, not you.

Be docile to the Holy Spirit, and speak as prompted.

 

[fix]

None of your quote said it was an infallible teaching. There is a magisterial document that mentions some infallible moral teachings, but contraception is not included in them.

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

“Other examples of moral doctrines which are taught as definitive by the universal and ordinary Magisterium of the Church are: the teaching on the illicitness of prostitution35 and of fornication.”

The magisterium has not said in any document that the teaching against contraception is infallible. If the magisterium were eager to point it out, it would have been pointed out in the above document from the CDF, but only the examples of euthanasia, prostitution and fornication are mentioned as infallible teachings. For whatever reason, therefore, the magisterium is not eager to point it out. Why? Perhaps it’s because it’s not infallible. What other reason could there be? To not disturb the consciences of so many Catholics who would nevertheless disobey? Perhaps. What do you think?

The document you linked says the list is not intended to be complete.

Also, The ordinary magisterium has spoken several times on this matter. It is in the CCC.

“This loyal submission of will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ‘ex cathedra’ in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and that one sincerely adhere to decisions made by him, in conformity with his manifest mind and intention, which is made known principally either by the character of the documents in question, or by the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated” (“Lumen Gentium”, n. 25a).

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=5146

1. first, we must point out the tendency to measure everything on the basis of the distinction between the “infallible Magisterium” and the “fallible Magisterium”.
   In this way infallibility becomes the criterion for all authority problems, to the point of actually replacing the concept of authority with that of infallibility. Furthermore, the question of the infallibility of the Magisterium is often confused with the question of the truth of a doctrine, by assuming that infallibility is the pre-qualification for the truth and irreformability of the doctrine, and by making the truth and definitive nature of the doctrine depend on whether or not it has been infallibly defined by the Magisterium. In fact, the truth and irreformability of a doctrine depends on the ), transmitted by Scripture and Tradition, while infallibility refers only to the degree of certitude of an act of magisterial teaching. In the various critical stances towards the recent documents of the Magisterium it is often forgotten that the infallible character of a teaching and the definitive and irrevocable character of the assent owed it is not a prerogative belonging solely to what has been solemnly “defined” by the Roman Pontiff or an Ecumenical Council. Whenever the Bishops dispersed in their individual Dioceses in communion with the Successor of Peter teach a truth to be held in a definitive way (cf. , n. 25, 2), they enjoy the same infallibility as the Pope’s Magisterium or that of a Council.

Moreover, it must also be kept in mind that if the authority of the Magisterium’s teachings admits of varying degrees, this does not mean that the authority of a lesser degree can be considered on the same level as theological opinions or, when it is not a question of infallibility, that only the arguments count and it is impossible for the Church to have a common certitude in a given doctrinal matter.

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/MDPD.HTM

The Church has said contraception is intrinsically evil. Which intrinsically evil act may be reversed?

 

[setter]

None of your quote said it was an infallible teaching.

The magisterium has not said in any document that the teaching against contraception is infallible. …For whatever reason, therefore, the magisterium is not eager to point it out. Why? Perhaps it’s because it’s not infallible. What other reason could there be? To not disturb the consciences of so many Catholics who would nevertheless disobey? Perhaps. What do you think?

I hope that you are sincere in your questioning, otherwise your questioning " Why? Perhaps it’s because it’s not infallible. What other reason could there be? …" could be a direct quote of the devil whispering into the ear of countless under or misinformed Catholics worldwide.

The Church does not define explicity, ex cathedra, every teaching of the Church which is infallible. There is the Deposit of Faith, the constant teaching of the Church, which defines a doctrine or element of faith as infallible.

“The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life” (Vademecum for Confessors 2:4, Feb. 12, 1997).

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

I hope that you are sincere in your questioning, otherwise your questioning " Why? Perhaps it’s because it’s not infallible. What other reason could there be? …" could be a direct quote of the devil whispering into the ear of countless under or misinformed Catholics worldwide.

The Church does not define explicity, ex cathedra, every teaching of the Church which is infallible. There is the Deposit of Faith, the constant teaching of the Church, which defines a doctrine or element of faith as infallible.

“The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life” (Vademecum for Confessors 2:4, Feb. 12, 1997).

Just to add to that as I posted yesterday this is what Humane Vitae says about contraception:

"the denunciation of contraceptives of every kind is most clear: “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil.9 "

Again you can plainly see that the Church is explicitly rejecting such forms of contraception as the Pill, condoms, and spermicides.

 

[pprimeau1976]

No body said that contracepting individuals will go to hell but let’s be realistic. The original post’s subject was not about whether contraception was right or wrong. The question was whether they will essentially go to heaven or hell. We all know what “Well done, good a faithful servant means.” We also know what happens when Jesus does not say that to someone.

So, unless the OP was a bishop or someone with authority, the question should never have even been asked because we as individuals have no way of knowing the answer.
And if someone even attempted to answer the question with a definite yes or no, then I hope that they have read this.

If you take this phrase of the OP:

The reason I ask, is not to presume to render judgment or discount the infinite mercy of God, but the impression one gets that many lax and dissident Catholics do not consider the reality of having to make an accounting for the “talents” given them to multiply for the kingdom.

This excuses the subject of the post, but still the OP focuses on the fact that we have to account for our talents. Like I said before, I am an NFP husband with an ABC wife. I tried the route where I tried to have her focus on the afterlife with no success. But after much prayer, and some wise postings that both I, and most importantly, God remembers, I have to try to get her to realize *for herself *how gifted she is, and that lifestyles are expensive, not children, and so on and so forth.

If the husband’s role is to love his wife as Christ loved the Church, I only wonder what station of the Cross I am at.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Really …contraception; defn: –noun, the deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation by any of various drugs, techniques, or devices;

Not quite. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2143802&postcount=47

 

[setter]

Not quite. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2143802&postcount=47

…your definition only further refutes your contentiopn that ABC and NFP are one in the same:

Main Entry: con·tra·cep·tion
Pronunciation: "kän-tr&-'sep-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: contra- + conception
: **deliberate prevention of **conception or impregnation

NFP does not “deliberately prevent”, as in act against the procreative good of a couple’s fertility, whereas every form of ABC does, as in the negative of “contra-”:

contra, defn; –preposition 1. against; in opposition or contrast to. link

 

[fix]

No body said that contracepting individuals will go to hell but let’s be realistic. The original post’s subject was not about whether contraception was right or wrong. The question was whether they will essentially go to heaven or hell. We all know what “Well done, good a faithful servant means.” We also know what happens when Jesus does not say that to someone.

So, unless the OP was a bishop or someone with authority, the question should never have even been asked because we as individuals have no way of knowing the answer.
And if someone even attempted to answer the question with a definite yes or no, then I hope that they have read this.

I cannot read the OP’s mind but I assume he was making a point about moral laxism.

 

[setter]

No body said that contracepting individuals will go to hell but let’s be realistic. The original post’s subject was not about whether contraception was right or wrong. The question was whether they will essentially go to heaven or hell. We all know what “Well done, good a faithful servant means.” We also know what happens when Jesus does not say that to someone.

My point was that not many folks seem to give this more than a cursory consideration in contrast with their personal choices.

We have no wish at all to pass over in silence the difficulties, at times very great, which beset the lives of Christian married couples. For them, as indeed for every one of us, “the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life.” (33) Nevertheless it is precisely the hope of that life which, like a brightly burning torch, lights up their journey, as, strong in spirit, they strive to live “sober, upright and godly lives in this world,” (34) knowing for sure that “the form of this world is passing away.” (35) Humanae Vitae]

BTW – What is so wrong about pointing out the trajectory of one’s personal choices, whether that be “the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many” or “the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.” (Matthew 7: 13-14)?

So, unless the OP was a bishop or someone with authority, the question should never have even been asked because we as individuals have no way of knowing the answer.
And if someone even attempted to answer the question with a definite yes or no, then I hope that they have read this.

Without presuming to judge, these types of questions are appropriate and help to focus our priorities and choices:

"And some one said to him, “Lord, will those who are saved be few?” And he said to them, “Strive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. When once the householder has risen up and shut the door, you will begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, open to us.' He will answer you, I do not know where you come from.’” **Luke 13: 23-25 **

If you take this phrase of the OP:

This excuses the subject of the post,

I make no excuses or apologies for my OP.

but still the OP focuses on the fact that we have to account for our talents. Like I said before, I am an NFP husband with an ABC wife. I tried the route where I tried to have her focus on the afterlife with no success. But after much prayer, and some wise postings that both I, and most importantly, God remembers, I have to try to get her to realize *for herself *how gifted she is, and that lifestyles are expensive, not children, and so on and so forth.

If the husband’s role is to love his wife as Christ loved the Church, I only wonder what station of the Cross I am at.

Your way of the Cross that leads to personal sanctity and holiness of life.

 

[setter]

I cannot read the OP’s mind but I assume he was making a point about moral laxism.

Thank you fix.

 

[otjm]

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

If you read the context in which I made the statement, you would find that my comments had to do with the fact that the conscience of many, if not most of the last two generations have been made up very thoroughly; it has been a combination of being taught, directly or indirectly, that the Church is only “one more voice”, and that ABC is perfectly ok; not only perfectly ok, but bordering on something close to a responsiblity to use. Byt the time they are marrying age (18, although few today get married before their mid 20’s), they have had maybe all of 1 hour in their lives about the Church teaching, which they had already been taught was “nicve but not necessary”. I would submit that they are not at fault for what they ahve been repeatedly taught - the belief in the irrelevance of Church teaching in this area - if for no other reason than their youth. Your quote is not salient to the point. It would be so, for one who has been taught all along of the need to follow Church teaching; but the reality of what kids have been taught is much different.

 

[fix]

If you read the context in which I made the statement, you would find that my comments had to do with the fact that the conscience of many, if not most of the last two generations have been made up very thoroughly; it has been a combination of being taught, directly or indirectly, that the Church is only “one more voice”, and that ABC is perfectly ok; not only perfectly ok, but bordering on something close to a responsiblity to use. Byt the time they are marrying age (18, although few today get married before their mid 20’s), they have had maybe all of 1 hour in their lives about the Church teaching, which they had already been taught was “nicve but not necessary”. I would submit that they are not at fault for what they ahve been repeatedly taught - the belief in the irrelevance of Church teaching in this area - if for no other reason than their youth. Your quote is not salient to the point. It would be so, for one who has been taught all along of the need to follow Church teaching; but the reality of what kids have been taught is much different.

But, this is a matter of natural moral law. Yes, conscience may be clouded but you make it too simplistic. That one has not been formally taught about this, or mistaught, does not axiomatically lead one to conclude one is invincibly ignorant therefore nonculpable.

If a pastor tells someone it is ok to have an abortion is one simply free from culpability because their priest told them so?

We have an obligation to seek what is true.

 

[Greg27]

The Catechism teaches that while hell is a real existential possibility for each individual, the Church does not officially say who is and is not in hell. In the end God will judge, or rather, each of us will judge ourselves, whether we will be embraced in God’s infinite love and mercy, or we endure eternal pain of self-isolation by cutting ourselves off from God.

While it is fairly easy for a well-formed conscience to see what is good and evil in moral acts, we do not know fully what motivates that person to act in that way. Someone who deals drugs might be doing so because there is no other way for them (in their eyes) to support their family. Someone who murders someone may do so because that person abused their child, and the abuser was exonerated in a miscarriage of justice. A mother who aborts her child may do so under extreme pressure from an irresponsible boyfriend, harsh family, or selfish husband. Only God can justly show a person what their merits and life deserved, when he opens the chambers of their memory, unlocks their heart, and shows the motions of the will to the good and evil in life.

Hence reproof for sin should be done not with the aim of mere punishment in mind, but rather in the spirit of mercy and compassion which aims to bring a person away from death and back to life, which is God. Even penance is meant to be medicinal, rather than simply judicial and legal, in character to the sinner.