Can this be true??

[Sacramentalist]

The use of contraceptives in the marital act is intrinsically evil. That mean’s evil under every circumstance.

Incorrect. The Church already recognizes that a woman make make love to her husband even if she is taking certain hormone medication(s) which she knows will have unintended contraceptive double-effects.

If a condom is not being used as a contraceptive it usage may very well be justified, if its contraceptive effect were unintended.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

askeptic:

I presume you are referring to annulments. As far as I know a person can remarry only if he was never married in the first place (never married in the eyes of the Church that is.).

In light of this, if two people were validly married, which I imagine most Catholics who marry in Church are, and one of them is later cheated on or abandoned, or abused, etc. The innocent party cannot find love and marry again.

Those who are lucky enough to get an annulment are not in this predicament, but not everyone is that lucky.

I don’t think you can get an annulment because your marriage is not working, you can only get it if there was never a marriage in the first place. (i.e. if consent was not valid, if they did not intend to be open to life or something like that)

The fact is that people who were sacramentally married (which is what I had in mind when I said married given that this is a Catholic board) can never remarry. True, they can separate in the case of abuse, but the abused spouse cannot fall in love and start a family with someone who is not abusive. The spouse who is cheated on and abandoned cannot marry again.

All of this still holds.

Why don’t you go talk to a priest, if a man for some reason abondons his wife, there is a good chance that there may not have been a valid marriage in the first place. If you don’t like Catholic teaching, don’t be Catholic, which you aren’t, just don’t condemn those of us who do try to follow the Church’s teachings. Jesus was hated in his lifetime as well, just as the Church today is, by all angles. From the left and from the right. Hatred for Catholics and the Catholic Church is the last acceptable prejudice. If your hatred for the Church were directed towards Blacks and/or Jews you would be called a racist or anti-Semetic. Hatred towards Catholics and the Church seems to be just fine though.

 

[bear06]

askeptic:

Instead of making hell God could just let people who reject him continue living on earth.

Instead of making hell the all-knowing God can choose to create only those people who he knows in advance will FREELY choose to go to heaven.

Furthermore, God can make it so the only way to “reject him for all eternity” is by comitting a truly evil did, such as the murder and rape of a child, not the use of condoms, missing mass on Sunday, or remarrying after having been abandoned by your spouse.

Sigh. Yes, I wish I held as much power as you give me but, alas, I am bound by Truth which isn’t of my own making. This is a whole other argument you have brought into the picture. God gives us free will. He doesn’t make anyone love him. Once again, you are practicing relativism which is a heresy. Truth is as it is, not as one’s circumstance makes it.

 

[precious_roy]

Ok, well since this thread said bye-bye to rhyme and reason a long time ago, I will leave with this comment because I need to get off to bed.

I converted to Catholicism about a year ago. I did so completely of my own accord. I don’t know anyone who is Catholic, I live in a pretty liberal city, I went to a pretty conservative school, I’ve seen the highs and low and drugs and yada-yada-yada. I realized one day that I had never actually sat down and reasoned out my own set of ethics and values. Everyone develops these throughout life but some come to hold such ludicrous and mutually exclusive, incoherent beliefs that they seem ridiculous when they talk about them. So I set forth to establish one set which I thought that if everyone applied them to everyone else that we’d all be better off economically speaking. I came out with the following:

Justice
Respect for the dignity of the human person and of human nature
Respect for a person as an individual
Trust

In essence, respecting people for who they are as people (just as we are) and treating them as ends, not as means. What I realized after some time and a lot of analysis is that this is precisely what is referred to as the Golden Rule, one of the most basic tenants of Christianity and of The Church. Now, I am not claiming that Jesus invented the Golden Rule as there are certainly old eastern references to similar things, but the reasoning that Christ used and the justifications given by Him became so overwhelming that I personally wept while reading them (I also was moved by His death and resurrection, but that is another story altogether).

And I think that what you will find is that sex with contraception is not inline with these principles, and hence I have never believed in it, even when I was Agnostic. It does not respect the dignity of the person as an individual and treats them as a means to pleasure rather than as an end. People use phrases like ‘immoral’ and ‘disordered’; what it really comes down to is you are using people for pleasure when you are doing this, and that is disrespectful.

Do I think that I am missing out because I am not having sex? Not in the slightest. Now if I was not allowed to go to Mass each Sunday, then I would think something was missing.

 

[askepticreturns]

Semper Fi:

Why don’t you go talk to a priest, if a man for some reason abondons his wife, there is a good chance that there may not have been a valid marriage in the first place. If you don’t like Catholic teaching, don’t be Catholic, which you aren’t, just don’t condemn those of us who do try to follow the Church’s teachings. Jesus was hated in his lifetime as well, just as the Church today is, by all angles. From the left and from the right. Hatred for Catholics and the Catholic Church is the last acceptable prejudice. If your hatred for the Church were directed towards Blacks and/or Jews you would be called a racist or anti-Semetic. Hatred towards Catholics and the Church seems to be just fine though.

I don’t hate Catholics, I resent and disagree with Catholic teaching.

The idea that marriages didn’t work out were never marriages in the first place and can be annulled is a good idea as far as I’m concerned because it will allow abandoned and abused Catholic spouses to get annulments and remarry.

But I think conservative Catholics will oppose this view of annulments.

 

[Reena]

precious_roy:

Ok, well since this thread said bye-bye to rhyme and reason a long time ago, I will leave with this comment because I need to get off to bed.

I converted to Catholicism about a year ago. I did so completely of my own accord. I don’t know anyone who is Catholic, I live in a pretty liberal city, I went to a pretty conservative school, I’ve seen the highs and low and drugs and yada-yada-yada. I realized one day that I had never actually sat down and reasoned out my own set of ethics and values. Everyone develops these throughout life but some come to hold such ludicrous and mutually exclusive, incoherent beliefs that they seem ridiculous when they talk about them. So I set forth to establish one set which I thought that if everyone applied them to everyone else that we’d all be better off economically speaking. I came out with the following:

Justice
Respect for the dignity of the human person and of human nature
Respect for a person as an individual
Trust

In essence, respecting people for who they are as people (just as we are) and treating them as ends, not as means. What I realized after some time and a lot of analysis is that this is precisely what is referred to as the Golden Rule, one of the most basic tenants of Christianity and of The Church. Now, I am not claiming that Jesus invented the Golden Rule as there are certainly old eastern references to similar things, but the reasoning that Christ used and the justifications given by Him became so overwhelming that I personally wept while reading them (I also was moved by His death and resurrection, but that is another story altogether).

And I think that what you will find is that sex with contraception is not inline with these principles, and hence I have never believed in it, even when I was Agnostic. It does not respect the dignity of the person as an individual and treats them as a means to pleasure rather than as an end. People use phrases like ‘immoral’ and ‘disordered’; what it really comes down to is you are using people for pleasure when you are doing this, and that is disrespectful.

Do I think that I am missing out because I am not having sex? Not in the slightest. Now if I was not allowed to go to Mass each Sunday, then I would think something was missing.

Contraception is a lifesaver for women. I am guessing you are a man who doesn’t have to worry about the negative effects of pregnancy.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Reena:

Contraception is a lifesaver for women. I am guessing you are a man who doesn’t have to worry about the negative effects of pregnancy.

Abstinence is the only lifesaver and is the only 100% sure way not to receive an STD or become pregnant. Condoms break. Contraceptives fail. After becoming a practicing Catholic about a year ago and returning to the Church, my girlfriend and I decided to practice abstinence. I enjoy her a lot more now, just being her. Before that my only goal was to… you know. It has been hard, but we occupy ourselves with more worthwhile things. I also wonder if you are aware of the recent reports which have been published linking birth control pills to breast cancer and making women infertile?

 

[Reena]

I am actually the same person as ASkeptic, and used this account after ASkeptic was suspended.

I read over things I said and realized why it was suspended, and apologized for it here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1296504#post1296504

I encourage those of you who talked with me to read it, because I did go overboard at times and feel bad about it.

(Plus I say some things that will allow you to say “I told you so”)

 

[fix]

EtienneGilson:

If it is accessable through natural law, one would wonder why the Catholic Church stands alone, not even with the Orthodox on the issue.

Because:

1960 The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known "by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error."12 The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.

EtienneGilson:

And yet the magisterium has changed moral teachings like slavery and torture before.

The magisterium has nevered changed any teaching on faith and morals. Meaning She has never contradicted the previous understanding. Please provide proof for your assertion.

]
The pope has not invoked the office of infallibility on the subject and has engaged arguments. It really isn’t much of an argument if no criticism can be leveled.

It is infallible by the ordinary magisterium.

]
There is only one magisterium and it is not the pope. Do not suppose that infalliblity is such a magical tool.

Please start with this:

2034 The Roman Pontiff and the bishops are "authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice."76 The *ordinary *and universal *Magisterium *of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for.

2035 The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility. This infallibility extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed.77

2036 The authority of the Magisterium extends also to the specific precepts of the natural law, because their observance, demanded by the Creator, is necessary for salvation. In recalling the prescriptions of the natural law, the Magisterium of the Church exercises an essential part of its prophetic office of proclaiming to men what they truly are and reminding them of what they should be before God.78

 

[EtienneGilson]

fix:

Because:

The magisterium has nevered changed any teaching on faith and morals. Meaning She has never contradicted the previous understanding. Please provide proof for your assertion.

That is wishful thinking. Take a look at the threads about geocentrism and you will see that so people here hold that it has been taught infallibly. The inquisition after all did condemn Galileo for heresy, not bad science.

But here is from the CE (1913):

From the beginning the Christian moralist did not condemn slavery as in se, or essentially, against the natural law or natural justice. The fact that slavery, tempered with many humane restrictions, was permitted under the Mosaic law would have sufficed to prevent the institution form being condemned by Christian teachers as absolutely immoral. They, following the example of St. Paul, implicitly accept slavery as not in itself incompatible with the Christian Law. The apostle counsels slaves to obey their masters, and to bear with their condition patiently. This estimate of slavery continued to prevail till it became fixed in the systematized ethical teaching of the schools; and so it remained without any conspicuous modification till towards the end of the eighteenth century.

newadvent.org/cathen/14039a.htm

Contrast that with Gaudium et Spes blanket condemnation of all forms of slavery. vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html

Try to reconclie the use of torture in the Inquisition with recent pronouncements.

The CCC on Torture:

Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.htm

And this article on torture catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=4560

 

[Brendan]

EtienneGilson:

That is wishful thinking. Take a look at the threads about geocentrism and you will see that so people here hold that it has been taught infallibly. The inquisition after all did condemn Galileo for heresy, not bad science.

Yep, Galileo was condemmed for his claim that the Church needed to re-write the Bible.

Which remains heresy.

As far as slavery, the Church has always condemmed chattle slavery, where not just the labor, but the person is considered property. It is a crime against human dignity.

It has not condemmed the slavery of the cooerced labor of justly condemmed prisoners (such as making licence plates) or in such cases where the person commits their labor for period of time, such as indentured servature, or when such is compelled, as it captives of war.

Society has developed new words (indentured servitude, penitentental servitude, etc…) for actions that were previously considered under a blanket term of ‘slavery’.

Now the term slavery just specifically refers to chattle slavery.

It is the term ‘slavery’ that has changed, not Church teaching on the subject.

 

[Lazerlike42]

The torture used in the inquisition was done by corrupt statesmen who used the inquisition to their advantage, not the Church Herself.

 

[EtienneGilson]

Brendan:

Yep, Galileo was condemmed for his claim that the Church needed to re-write the Bible.

Which remains heresy.

You really have no clue what Galileo was condemned for do you?

*Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei, of Florence, aged seventy years, were denounced in 1615, to this Holy Office, for holding as true a false doctrine taught by many, namely, that the sun is immovable in the center of the world, and that the earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; also, for having pupils whom you instructed in the same opinions; also, for maintaining a correspondence on the same with some German mathematicians; also for publishing certain letters on the sun-spots, in which you developed the same doctrine as true; also, for answering the objections which were continually produced from the Holy Scriptures, by glozing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning; and whereas thereupon was produced the copy of a writing, in form of a letter professedly written by you to a person formerly your pupil, in which, following the hypothesis of Copernicus, you include several propositions contrary to the true sense and authority of the Holy Scriptures; therefore (this Holy Tribunal being desirous of providing against the disorder and mischief which were thence proceeding and increasing to the detriment of the Holy Faith) by the desire of his Holiness and the Most Emminent Lords, Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the sun, and the motion of the earth, were qualified by the Theological Qualifiers as follows: * fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1630galileo.html

As far as slavery, the Church has always condemmed chattle slavery…It is the term ‘slavery’ that has changed, not Church teaching on the subject.

No, no it hasn’t. Unless you are going to define chattle slavery as something so terrible it is a meaningless term. VII condemned many forms of slavery not previously condemned (even found acceptable by the church) such as the purchase and exchange of slaves or even what we now call serfdom.

 

[fix]

EtienneGilson:

You really have no clue what Galileo was condemned for do you?

The question is, however, whether either of them condemned the doctrine ex cathedra. This, it is clear, they never did. As to the decree of 1616, we have seen that it was issued by the Congregation of the Index, which can raise no difficulty in regard of infallibility, this tribunal being absolutely incompetent to make a dogmatic decree. Nor is the case altered by the fact that the pope approved the Congregation’s decision in forma communi, that is to say, to the extent needful for the purpose intended, namely to prohibit the circulation of writings which were judged harmful. The pope and his assessors may have been wrong in such a judgment, but this does not alter the character of the pronouncement, or convert it into a decree ex cathedra.

As to the second trial in 1633, this was concerned not so much with the doctrine as with the person of Galileo, and his manifest breach of contract in not abstaining from the active propaganda of Copernican doctrines. The sentence, passed upon him in consequence, clearly implied a condemnation of Copernicanism, but it made no formal decree on the subject, and did not receive the pope’s signature. Nor is this only an opinion of theologians; it is corroborated by writers whom none will accuse of any bias in favour of the papacy. Thus Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes) declares

newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm

No, no it hasn’t. Unless you are going to define chattle slavery as something so terrible it is a meaningless term. VII condemned many forms of slavery not previously condemned (even found acceptable by the church) such as the purchase and exchange of slaves or even what we now call serfdom.

Chattel slavery was always illicit. Please provide proof that the Church has changed Her position.

 

[fix]

EtienneGilson:

That is wishful thinking. Take a look at the threads about geocentrism and you will see that so people here hold that it has been taught infallibly. The inquisition after all did condemn Galileo for heresy, not bad science.

Please see my last post as it addresses your point.

As for slavery I cannot agree with your position and I have seen no proof to offered that changes my mind. Even your link from the old CE refutes your position:

Even granting that slavery, when attended with a due regard for the rights of the slave, is not in itself intrinsically wrong, there still remains the important question of the titles by which a master can justly own a slave.newadvent.org/cathen/14039a.htm

 

[BillP]

fix,

fix:

As for slavery I cannot agree with your position and I have seen no proof to offered that changes my mind. Even your link from the old CE refutes your position:

The post proves the point rather handily I’d say.

In 1913, the C.E. (a part of that ordinary Magesiterium you folks think is infallible) says:

                          Even granting that slavery, when attended with a due regard for the rights of the slave, is not in itself intrinsically wrong, there still remains the important question of the titles by which a master can justly own a slave.[newadvent.org/cathen/14039a.htm](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14039a.htm)

Yet in 1994, the CCC says:

2414 The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason—selfish or ideological, commercial, or totalitarian—lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity. It is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive value or to a source of profit. St. Paul directed a Christian master to treat his Christian slave "no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, . . . both in the flesh and in the Lord."194

And voila! The Church’s position has changed. Q.E.D.

 

[magdelaine]

fix:

Please see my last post as it addresses your point.

As for slavery I cannot agree with your position and I have seen no proof to offered that changes my mind. Even your link from the old CE refutes your position:

Hmmm, it seems you argued against your own point when you included this:

From the beginning the Christian moralist did not condemn slavery as in se, or essentially, against the natural law or natural justice.

Are you saying that the Catholic Church still doesn’t hold that slavery is against natural law?

Edit: Obviously BillP answered that question.

It seems this idea that the magisterium does not change it’s decrees and viewpoint with time is a rather naive one.

 

[fix]

BillP:

fix,

The post proves the point rather handily I’d say.

In 1913, the C.E. (a part of that ordinary Magesiterium you folks think is infallible) says:

Yet in 1994, the CCC says:

And voila! The Church’s position has changed. Q.E.D.

I do not think the CE is part of the magisterium at all. In any event, I see no contradiction at all. The CCC is talking about chattel slavery. As another poster stated the position has not changed, but the use of the word has changed.

 

[fix]

magdelaine:

Hmmm, it seems you argued against your own point when you included this:

Are you saying that the Catholic Church still doesn’t hold that slavery is against natural law?

Edit: Obviously BillP answered that question.

It seems this idea that the magisterium does not change it’s decrees and viewpoint with time is a rather naive one.

When we use the term slavery we should understand it has different meanings in differing contexts and in differing times. It is not as simple minded as you make it out.

Perhaps this will help:

***Let My People Go: the Catholic Church and Slavery

---

For many Catholics today the key question is: Does previous Catholic practice regarding slavery amount to a change of doctrine such as would allow Catholic teaching on other subjects—such as contraception and abortion—to change as well?

The answer: In no way. The Church’s teaching about the dignity and basic equality of all human beings has been clarified to such a degree that any earlier ambiguity about the tolerance of chattel slavery has been eradicated. The Church’s teaching regarding contraception and abortion can also be said to have developed, but not in the direction of approving those practices…

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1201

 

[BillP]

fix:

When we use the term slavery we should understand it has different meanings in differing contexts and in differing times. It is not as simple minded as you make it out.

Well isn’t THAT convenient! You define the terms in ways that support your argument, interpolate words that don’t exist in the source documents, then declare victory! You do realize that sophistry doesn’t change the facts don’t you?

For many Catholics today the key question is: Does previous Catholic practice regarding slavery amount to a change of doctrine such as would allow Catholic teaching on other subjects—such as contraception and abortion—to change as well?

The answer: In no way. The Church’s teaching about the dignity and basic equality of all human beings has been clarified to such a degree that any earlier ambiguity about the tolerance of chattel slavery has been eradicated. The Church’s teaching regarding contraception and abortion can also be said to have developed, but not in the direction of approving those practices…

It walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, flys like a duck, but really folks its a giraffe! Yeah that’s right a giraffe!