Can this be true??

[BillP]

fix:

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.

In the first place the C.E. has the imprimetuer of the Archbishop of New York Cardinal Farley. How can you NOT think it’s part of the ordinary Magesterium? Or does the O.E. only include teachings you agree with or don’t find “inconvenient”?

Secondly, show me one place where the CCC uses the term “chattel slavery”. These were educated men. If they wanted to narrowly define slavery they were more than capable of it.

 

[magdelaine]

Perhaps further “clarification” on the subject of the use of contraception by married couples would include an acknowledgement that the choice to increase or decrease the odds of conception at a given time does not go against natural law, but rather supports it. It is why NFP is accepted now. How is it that we can use our heads (NFP) but not technology (condoms) to accomplish the same goal?

Edit: And don’t give me that “mutual mastrubation” stuff. That’s just silly.

 

[fix]

BillP:

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?

I am not self defining the terms, but accepting that they have been used in differing ways. That is use of reason.

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!

The truth will only be accepted to the degree one is willing to accept it.

 

[fix]

BillP:

In the first place the C.E. has the imprimetuer of the Archbishop of New York Cardinal Farley. How can you NOT think it’s part of the ordinary Magesterium? Or does the O.E. only include teachings you agree with or don’t find “inconvenient”?

Since when does an imprimeteur mean the text is an official teaching of the magisterium?

Secondly, show me one place where the CCC uses the term “chattel slavery”. These were educated men. If they wanted to narrowly define slavery they were more than capable of it.

The CCC uses refernces to support the passages. Why do you not check the footnotes and accept that the Church has a long record that can be read by all. It seems you have a interest in narrowly defining this topic to suit your position.

 

[fix]

magdelaine:

Perhaps further “clarification” on the subject of the use of contraception by married couples would include an acknowledgement that the choice to increase or decrease the odds of conception at a given time does not go against natural law, but rather supports it. It is why NFP is accepted now. How is it that we can use our heads (NFP) but not technology (condoms) to accomplish the same goal?

Edit: And don’t give me that “mutual mastrubation” stuff. That’s just silly.

The teaching against contraception is as old as the human race. It will never change. It is mutual masturbation as it intentionally frustrates the marital act and separates love from sex.

 

[magdelaine]

fix:

intentionally frustrates the marital act and separates love from sex.

Like I said, silly. I don’t know about you, but that has NOT been my experience. Saying that it is so doesn’t make it so.

BTW, how again is this different than NFP?

 

[fix]

magdelaine:

Like I said, silly. I don’t know about you, but that has NOT been my experience. Saying that it is so doesn’t make it so.

Feelings are not the same as truth. We can all be deceived.

BTW, how again is this different than NFP?

As I said contraception intentionally frustrates the marital act. One specfically and intentionally refuses to give all to the other. One withholds.

NFP does not frustrate the act.

 

[BillP]

fix:

Since when does an imprimeteur mean the text is an official teaching of the magisterium?

There are “unoffical” teachings? Silly me, I thought the “ordinary magesterium” was the collected body of teachings of the bishops.

Wasn’t Cardinal Farley a bishop?

catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bfarley.html

Yep. Seems he was.

Isn’t an Imprimetuer a statement by the bishop granting it that the document its attached to is consistent with Catholic teaching? Isn’t “Catholic teahcing” simply another way to define the “ordinary Magesterium”?

Imprimatur is Latin for “let it be printed.” When a Roman Catholic bishop grants his imprimatur to a printed work, he assures the reader that nothing therein is contrary to Catholic faith or morals. This imprimatur is not given lightly; only after a thorough review process.

Yep, Thought so.

fix:

The CCC uses refernces to support the passages. Why do you not check the footnotes and accept that the Church has a long record that can be read by all. It seems you have a interest in narrowly defining this topic to suit your position.

Okay, fair enough. Lets see here, there’s one footnote 194, which refers to something called Philem 16.

According to the USCCB:

This short letter addressed to three specific individuals was written by Paul during an imprisonment, perhaps in Rome between A.D. 61 and 63 (see the Introduction to Colossians for other possible sites). It concerns Onesimus, a slave from Colossae (Col 4:9), who had run away from his master, perhaps guilty of theft in the process (Philemon 1:18). Onesimus was converted to Christ by Paul (Philemon 1:10). Paul sends him back to his master (Philemon 1:12) with this letter asking that he be welcomed willingly by his old master (Philemon 1:8-10, 14, 17) not just as a slave but as a brother in Christ (Philemon 1:16). Paul uses very strong arguments (especially Philemon 1:19) in his touching appeal on behalf of Onesimus. It is unlikely that Paul is subtly hinting that he would like to retain Onesimus as his own slave, lent to Paul by his master. Rather, he suggests he would like to have Onesimus work with him for the gospel (Philemon 1:13, 20-21).

usccb.org/nab/bible/philemon/philemon.htm#v19

Nope. Nothing here about chattel salvery. So the footbnote doesn’t change the meaning. Got anything else?

Did you bother to read the cite yourself?

In what way do you think it justifies narrowing “slavery” to only “chattel slavery” in the CCC?

 

[fix]

BillP:

There are “unoffical” teachings? Silly me, I thought the “ordinary magesterium” was the collected body of teachings of the bishops.

The ordinary magisterium is continually exercised by the Church especially in her universal practices connected with faith and morals, in the unanimous consent of the Fathers (q.v.) and theologians, in the decisions of Roman Congregations concerning faith and morals, in the common sense (q.v.) of the faithful, and various historical documents in which the faith is declared. All these are founts of a teaching which as a whole is infallible. They have to be studied separately to determine how far and in what conditions each of them is an infallible source of truth.catholic.net/RCC/Catechism/Magisterium/definition.html

Wasn’t Cardinal Farley a bishop?

catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bfarley.html
Yep. Seems he was.
Isn’t an Imprimetuer a statement by the bishop granting it that the document its attached to is consistent with Catholic teaching? Isn’t “Catholic teahcing” simply another way to define the “ordinary Magesterium”?
Yep, Thought so.

It means in a bishop’s opinion nothing is contrary to Church teaching. It is not infallible and some books that have errors have imprimateurs.

Okay, fair enough. Lets see here, there’s one footnote 194, which refers to something called Philem 16.

According to the USCCB:

usccb.org/nab/bible/philemon/philemon.htm#v19

Nope. Nothing here about chattel salvery. So the footbnote doesn’t change the meaning. Got anything else?

Did you bother to read the cite yourself?

In what way do you think it justifies narrowing “slavery” to only “chattel slavery” in the CCC?

Do you think one citation speaks to the history of slavery and the Catholic Church? That one footnote cannot give you the answers. Do you think that the info in the CC was pulled from the air without any grounding in other Church documents?

 

[BillP]

fix:

It means in a bishop’s opinion nothing is contrary to Church teaching. It is not infallible and some books that have errors have imprimateurs.

fix,

I think you’re confused. The opinions of the bishops constitute the ordinary Magisterium. Every opinon, by every Bishop since St. Peter, collectively make up the ordinary Magisterium.

fix:

Do you think one citation speaks to the history of slavery and the Catholic Church? That one footnote cannot give you the answers. Do you think that the info in the CC was pulled from the air without any grounding in other Church documents?

Dude, it was your cite, not mine. You assert that the general prohibition of slavery currently included in the CCC is something more narrowly drawn and nuanced. I asked you to support that assertion, you provided that cite, which has nothingg whatever to do with the issue at hand.

Do you have another cite? What evidence can you produce that indicates that the framers of the CCC intended the prohibition on slavery to be narrowly drawn to include only chattel slavery?

 

[magdelaine]

fix:

Feelings are not the same as truth. We can all be deceived.

I accept that it is possible to deceived by feelings. That is why I’m trying to learn as much as I can about the arguments posited by the Church. Using reason, I just don’t find that these arguments follow, esp. when considering my own experience.

fix:

As I said contraception intentionally frustrates the marital act. One specfically and intentionally refuses to give all to the other. One withholds.

NFP does not frustrate the act.

My point is that is possible to use a condom to reduce the odds of conception AND be open to life, thus not withholding anything.

But using your argument, NFP withholds by specifically and intentionally refusing to have sex during a woman’s fertile time. It is just like using a condom in intent, but it functions over the course of a woman’s cycle. I have used NFP to avoid pregnancy and to conceive, so it’s not like I’m not familiar with it.

 

[setter]

I accept that it is possible to deceived by feelings. That is why I’m trying to learn as much as I can about the arguments posited by the Church. Using reason, I just don’t find that these arguments follow, esp. when considering my own experience

.
Again, all human experience is subjective to some degree and manner.

My point is that is possible to use a condom to reduce the odds of conception AND be open to life, thus not withholding anything.

Like “partial” open to life. This is silly when drawn to it’s logical conclusion. Where does one draw an arbritrary line when one is “less open to and more closed to life”. God designed married conjugal love to be a reflection of the reality of the Holy Trinity exchange of love. Can you imagine God being “reduced” in His “openess to life”?

But using your argument, NFP withholds by specifically and intentionally refusing to have sex during a woman’s fertile time. It is just like using a condom in intent

, but it functions over the course of a woman’s cycle. I have used NFP to avoid pregnancy and to conceive, so it’s not like I’m not familiar with it.

It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it. (CCC 1756

)

Some rules [of conscience] apply in every case:

• One may never do evil so that good may result from it; (CCC 1789

)

 

[fix]

BillP:

fix,

I think you’re confused. The opinions of the bishops constitute the ordinary Magisterium. Every opinon, by every Bishop since St. Peter, collectively make up the ordinary Magisterium.

The ordinary magisterium is not simply a compilation of private opinions. It is the teaching authority of the Church.
Ordinary magisterium is the perennial teaching of the Pope and the Bishops in union with him around the world. It does not teach error. One bishop’s view, as an example, that contradicts Church teaching is not the ordinary magisterium.

Dude, it was your cite, not mine. You assert that the general prohibition of slavery currently included in the CCC is something more narrowly drawn and nuanced. I asked you to support that assertion, you provided that cite, which has nothingg whatever to do with the issue at hand.

Do you have another cite? What evidence can you produce that indicates that the framers of the CCC intended the prohibition on slavery to be narrowly drawn to include only chattel slavery?

This is like a Protestant proof texting the bible and self interpreting it without regard to all of Church teaching. You can’t put the CCC at odds with all of Church historical teaching and claim the Church is falllible. So, the problem is not that the Church has changed her teaching on any issue of faith and morals, but your understanding is lacking.

What do you do with things like prisons, or prisoners of war, or endentured servitude that were all called slavery at one time. Does the Church teach prisons are wrong?

Again, regarding the CCC those teachings were not pulled out of the air.

 

[BillP]

fix:

The ordinary magisterium is not simply a compilation of private opinions. It is the teaching authority of the Church.
Ordinary magisterium is the perennial teaching of the Pope and the Bishops in union with him around the world. It does not teach error. One bishop’s view, as an example, that contradicts Church teaching is not the ordinary magisterium.

No sir,

What you describe is the UNIVERSAL ordinary Magisterium. And is theoretically how the ordinary Magisterium becomes infallible, that is IF the teaching is universally held and is consistently taught for a long enough period of time.

The ordinary Magisterium is day in, day out teachings of each and every one of the bishops of the Chruch from time immemorial and is not in and of itself infallible unless universal and consistent.

fix:

This is like a Protestant proof texting the bible and self interpreting it without regard to all of Church teaching. You can’t put the CCC at odds with all of Church historical teaching and claim the Church is falllible. So, the problem is not that the Church has changed her teaching on any issue of faith and morals, but your understanding is lacking.

This is circular reasoning. You start with the a priori assumption that the Church never has (or will, or is capable of) changing a teaching. Then when confronted with a circumstance in which she appears to have changed, you deny the possibility and determine what sophistry, mental gymnastics and intellectual dishonesty are necessary to reconcile the old position, the new position and the a priori assumption what the Church never changes.

We’re not having a discussion then, you’re simply arguing by repeatedly assserting.

Thanks for your time.+

 

[fix]

magdelaine:

My point is that is possible to use a condom to reduce the odds of conception AND be open to life, thus not withholding anything.

That is a contradiction. How can one be open when one is specfically frustrating part of the action?

But using your argument, NFP withholds by specifically and intentionally refusing to have sex during a woman’s fertile time. It is just like using a condom in intent, but it functions over the course of a woman’s cycle.

I do not think so. The intent in spacing children, or not having them all all for serious reason, is licit. How that is achieved is either licit or illict. The ends never justify the means.

In the case of NFP one is abstaining. In the case of a condom one is frustrating the act.

According to the criterion of this truth, which should be expressed in the language of the body, the conjugal act signifies not only love, but also potential fecundity. Therefore it cannot be deprived of its full and adequate significance by artificial means. In the conjugal act it is not licit to separate the unitive aspect from the procreative aspect, because both the one and the other pertain to the intimate truth of the conjugal act. The one is activated together with the other and in a certain sense the one by means of the other… Therefore, in such a case the conjugal act, deprived of its interior truth because it is artificially deprived of its procreative capacity, ceases also to be an act of love.omsoul.com/pamview.php?idnum=153

 

[fix]

BillP:

No sir,

What you describe is the UNIVERSAL ordinary Magisterium. And is theoretically how the ordinary Magisterium becomes infallible, that is IF the teaching is universally held and is consistently taught for a long enough period of time.

The ordinary Magisterium is day in, day out teachings of each and every one of the bishops of the Chruch from time immemorial.

What is your point in this line of argument?
**892 **Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. 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.

The teaching authority exists. One either accepts it or rejects. I was speaking about the universal and ordinary magisterium.

This is circular reasoning. You start with the a priori assumption that the Church never has (or will, or is capable of) changing a teaching. Then when confronted with a circumstance in which she appears to have changed, you deny the possibility and determine what sophistry, mental gymnastics and intellectual dishonesty are necessary to reconcile the old position, the new position and the a priori assumption what the Church never changes.

We’re not having a discussion then, you’re simply arguing by repeatedly assserting.

Thanks for your time.+

As you are. The difference is my position is based in truth. Also, it is not about changing a teaching as it is developing it.

 

[magdelaine]

fix:

Therefore, in such a case the conjugal act, deprived of its interior truth because it is artificially deprived of its procreative capacity, ceases also to be an act of love.omsoul.com/pamview.php?idnum=153

I understand the need to make this argument, but I disagree with it’s conclusion. I’m glad that I understand it better now, though.

You have to understand, every other Church teaching I have tried to learn more about because of questions I have had a “ringing of truth” to it that gets louder and louder the more I hear it. This teaching, instead of the above, starts looking more and more like a game of verbal Twister. Why is it that humans can’t use their heads (i.e., technology) with regards to their own fertility?

I guess I keep asking that question because I don’t accept the explicit formula “(married couple+sex)-procreation=sin”. It puts too much emphasis on our animal nature (since humans use sex to procreate humans can ONLY use sex to procreate). I know, I know, infertile couples can have sex, you can use NFP, it increases the marital bond, etc., etc. This is where the “twister” analogy comes in for me.

The thing is that I don’t think most Catholics are familiar with the “open to life” argument beyond the “sinfullness” of contraceptives, as evidenced by the fact that most of the families in the two parishes here in town have 2 children, more rarely 3, and almost never more. I think that making contraceptive use a “sin” distracts from the open to life arguments BECAUSE it makes no sense, and so people don’t go beyond it, they just reject it wholy.

So I don’t think I’ve got much more to say on this, except that I will continue to pray for enlightenment; either for myself if that is where it is needed, or for our Church. I leave that to God.

 

[fix]

BillP:

In the first place the C.E. has the imprimetuer of the Archbishop of New York Cardinal Farley. How can you NOT think it’s part of the ordinary Magesterium? Or does the O.E. only include teachings you agree with or don’t find “inconvenient”?

Secondly, show me one place where the CCC uses the term “chattel slavery”. These were educated men. If they wanted to narrowly define slavery they were more than capable of it.

I want to address this again as this seems to me where the confusion started. You want to make the CE as having magisterial weight intending anything in there may be used as evidence the Church is fallible in teaching of faith and morals? Is that your assertion?

 

[RCCDefender]

NFP can be used illicitly, in that case it is considered the same as artificial forms of birth control. The couple must prayerfully consider every month what God is calling them to do, not whether they think it’s the right time to have children. NFP does not exclude God’s will from the equation, ABC does.

 

[magdelaine]

RCCDefender:

NFP can be used illicitly, in that case it is considered the same as artificial forms of birth control. The couple must prayerfully consider every month what God is calling them to do, not whether they think it’s the right time to have children. NFP does not exclude God’s will from the equation, ABC does.

A couple cannot also prayerfully consult God before they use a condom? That’s just patently untrue.