Can this be true??

[fix]

magdelaine:

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.

Thank you for sharing these thoughts. They do help me understand your position. I know there are many more posters here much better informed than I who will give you a better response.

I can only offer this. Either Christ founded one Church that He speaks through infallibly to guide each of us to salvation, or the entire enterprise is a shame. All of it would be false.

I think this particular teaching may be known and accepted on many levels, but the first one I thought of is this:

No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, (l) that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, (2) constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men’s eternal salvation. (3)
Humanae Vitae

Who should I follow? If you tell me not the Church in this case then I respectfully ask why would Christ fool the teachers he left and let us think truth may contradict truth?

 

[fix]

magdelaine:

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

How may one ask in prayer to do something that contradicts the moral good?

To use a silly example may I pray and ask God if it is ok to be a racist?

 

[setter]

magdelaine:

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.

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.

Along the lines of being open to God’s design and will for Catholic marriage, here is a useful book refernce about a Protestant couple who struggles to overcome thier objection to the reasonableness of contraception in their conversion to the Catholic faith.

Life-Giving Love : Embracing God’s Beautiful Design for Marriage – by Kimberly Hahn, Scott Hahn

 

[BillP]

fix:

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?

Fair enough. No here is where we are according to my perceptions.

In post #145 Etienne Gilson used a quote from the C.E. to note that the Churchs position on slavery changed.

…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.

In post #150 you quoted a different part of the C.E. that appeared to say that slavery wasn’t intrinsically wrong, infact you added the underlining to highlight your point.

                          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)

I saw that post and in my post #151 contrasted the C.E. position on slavery in 1913 with the CCC position on slavery circa 1994 and noted that the C.E. was part of the ordinary Magisterium.

Your post #153 denied that the C.E. was part of the odinary Magisterium and attempted to narrow the CCC prohibition to only “chattel slavery”

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.

My post #s 156, 163, 165, and 169 were arguments for the Magisterial status of the C.E.

Here in a nutshell is my argument it is basically a recap of the discussion on hte infalliblity of the ABC teaching we had a while ago.

Yes, the Church is infallible under certain conditions. Those conditions are a) when a Pope speaks ex cathedra on a matter of Faith or Morals b) when an Ecumenical Council specifically defines a doctrine as a dogma there is also a theoretical possibility for c) the ordinary Magisterium but only if there is a universal consensus among each and every one of the Bishops of the Church and that consensus is maintained consistently over a long enough period. This natually raises the questions how universal? and what constitutes “long enough”? Good questions both and the reason that the infallibilty of the O.M is generally regarded as theortical only.

How is this relevent? Here’s how. The Church’s position on Slavery was never, as far as I know the subject of an ex cathedra statement form a Pope or a Dogmatic pronouncement from an Ecumenical Council. Therefore it was a product of the O.M. only. The O.M., unless it achieves the universal consensus and required persistence to make it infallible, is fallible and therefore changeable.

Slavery demostrates one teaching the O.M. that has clearly changed. ABC may represent a teaching of the O.M. (there has certainly been no definitive ex cathedra statement or Ecumenical Council action that would place it in the Extraordinary Magisterium) that is fallible and thus changeable.

 

[bear06]

Yes, the Church is infallible under certain conditions. Those conditions are a) when a Pope speaks ex cathedra on a matter of Faith or Morals b) when an Ecumenical Council specifically defines a doctrine as a dogma there is also a theoretical possibility for c) the ordinary Magisterium but only if there is a universal consensus among each and every one of the Bishops of the Church and that consensus is maintained consistently over a long enough period. This natually raises the questions how universal? and what constitutes “long enough”? Good questions both and the reason that the infallibilty of the O.M is generally regarded as theortical only

Actually, this is only a partial answer. You are also forgetting that the Church is infallible in “facts so intimately connected with these as to require infallible determination, fall under tbe scope of infallible ecclesiastical teaching.” newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

What’s long enough? Well the Holy Father decided that:

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).

How is this relevent? Here’s how. The Church’s position on Slavery was never, as far as I know the subject of an ex cathedra statement form a Pope or a Dogmatic pronouncement from an Ecumenical Council. Therefore it was a product of the O.M. only. The O.M., unless it achieves the universal consensus and required persistence to make it infallible, is fallible and therefore changeable.

Slavery demostrates one teaching the O.M. that has clearly changed. ABC may represent a teaching of the O.M. (there has certainly been no definitive ex cathedra statement or Ecumenical Council action that would place it in the Extraordinary Magisterium) that is fallible and thus changeable.

This article posted by fix earlier addresses the very arguments you are trying to make:
catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1201

The Holy Father gets to interpret previous Magisterial teachings and how they relate to society today and several of them have taught the current teachings on contraception are in line with all previous teachings.

You might also want to read Pastor Aeternus to see what we owe our obedience and submission.

ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#6

 

[magdelaine]

BillP:

Yes, the Church is infallible under certain conditions. Those conditions are a) when a Pope speaks ex cathedra on a matter of Faith or Morals b) when an Ecumenical Council specifically defines a doctrine as a dogma there is also a theoretical possibility for c) the ordinary Magisterium but only if there is a universal consensus among each and every one of the Bishops of the Church and that consensus is maintained consistently over a long enough period. This natually raises the questions how universal? and what constitutes “long enough”? Good questions both and the reason that the infallibilty of the O.M is generally regarded as theortical only.

How is this relevent? Here’s how. The Church’s position on Slavery was never, as far as I know the subject of an ex cathedra statement form a Pope or a Dogmatic pronouncement from an Ecumenical Council. Therefore it was a product of the O.M. only. The O.M., unless it achieves the universal consensus and required persistence to make it infallible, is fallible and therefore changeable.

Slavery demostrates one teaching the O.M. that has clearly changed. ABC may represent a teaching of the O.M. (there has certainly been no definitive ex cathedra statement or Ecumenical Council action that would place it in the Extraordinary Magisterium) that is fallible and thus changeable.

Thank you for unravelling this. This fits my much more generalized understanding of the Church regarding fallible/infallible teaching.

I still have so much to learn but if it weren’t for seeing that the Church, and her human Body, could change for the better over time (examples already stated plus, for me personally, Church’s teaching on Salvation, i.e. who is saved) I would have a hard time being Catholic.

 

[Redbandito]

askeptic:

Can a person have free will when he is being threatened with eternal torment?

People can’t even give consent in marriage if there is some kind of a coersion, I would say eternal punishment is the ultimate coersion.

That is bologna. You always have a choice. Choosing between good and bad is a luxury. Often times you have to choose between bad and worse. The point is, it’s still a choice. Furthermore, Catholics that know their faith will tell you that we don’t follow the moral law out of fear of eternal punishment as much as we DESIRE to be pleasing to our father in Heaven. There is always the reality of Hell, but we need not live our lives in fear of it either. Living in accord with God’s will frees us, not enslaves us.

 

[bear06]

magdelaine:

Thank you for unravelling this. This fits my much more generalized understanding of the Church regarding fallible/infallible teaching.

I still have so much to learn but if it weren’t for seeing that the Church, and her human Body, could change for the better over time (examples already stated plus, for me personally, Church’s teaching on Salvation, i.e. who is saved) I would have a hard time being Catholic.

I agree that being Catholic is sometimes difficult but I think that you’ve got some things askew. The Church cannot contradict her Truths. Here’s another good article on the subject which also addresses Bill’s consesus theory.

catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Homiletic/Jan98/contraception.html

 

[magdelaine]

bear06:

I agree that being Catholic is sometimes difficult but I think that you’ve got some things askew. The Church cannot contradict her Truths. Here’s another good article on the subject which also addresses Bill’s consesus theory.

catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Homiletic/Jan98/contraception.html

How about that! While you were posting this I was reading the same document. I was returning to post this link…

I understand what others were trying to argue a little better now.

 

[BillP]

bear06:

I agree that being Catholic is sometimes difficult but I think that you’ve got some things askew. The Church cannot contradict her Truths. Here’s another good article on the subject which also addresses Bill’s consesus theory.

catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Homiletic/Jan98/contraception.html

Its not my theory. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church. Absent a definitive declaration from a Pope or an Ecumenical COuncil, there must be a consensus among the Bishops for a teaching to be infallible.

Even according to your own document there is no consensus!

In addition, readers who have witnessed the post-conciliar era in the Church will know that you cannot exactly rely on a solid defense of Catholic teaching from your fellow Catholics; and many bishops and priests are distinctly dodgy in this area

Does that sound like a consensus to you?

 

[magdelaine]

Ok, this is an article written by a protestant, and you may choose to ignore it for that alone. However when the writer talks about “natural law” being “that which one can not not know” and how it just doesn’t occur to him (and most Protestants) that there is a sin in using contraception he is elaborating on what I was trying to say earlier about “my own experience”.

firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9904/opinion/nuechterlein.html

This is something that WILL need to be addressed in the future if we are to have any hope of a dream close to my heart; that of all Christians worshipping in one Church.

Aquinas conceded that there are situations where some people under some circumstances can be blinded to natural law precepts. It seems odd to suppose, however, that in our time virtually all Protestants (and not a few Catholics) would have their moral faculties so corrupted—not in general, but on this one particular issue. And the problem cannot be attributed to lack of careful consideration. Many serious Protestants have by now read and pondered Humanae Vitae and remain as unpersuaded by its arguments as do those who have never given it a moment’s thought.

 

[fix]

BillP:

Fair enough. No here is where we are according to my perceptions…

I do not have the time right now to reply to your points seriatim. For now I want to ask you about this:

a) The ordinary, universal Magisterium consists in the proclamation of the Bishops in union with the Pope. It is expressed in the fact that the Bishops (including the Bishop of Rome, who is the Head of the College) give a common witness. It is not a question of extraordinary statements, but of the Church’s normal life, of what is preached in ordinary circumstances as universal teaching in the everyday life of the Church. “<This ordinary Magisterium is thus the normal form of the Church’s infallibility>”…

Moreover, when speaking of the need to verify the actual consent of all the Bishops dispersed throughout the world or even of the whole Christian people in matters of faith and morals, it should not be forgotten that this consent cannot be understood only <synchronically,> but also . This means that a morally consent embraces every era of the Church, and only if this totality is heard does one remain faithful to the Apostles. “If in some quarter”, the wise Cardinal Ratzinger observes, “a majority were to be formed in opposition to the faith of the Church in other times, it would not be a majority at all”.2
MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS AND PUBLIC DISSENT

Do you agree?

 

[Redbandito]

magdelaine:

Ok, this is an article written by a protestant, and you may choose to ignore it for that alone. However when the writer talks about “natural law” being “that which one can not not know” and how it just doesn’t occur to him (and most Protestants) that there is a sin in using contraception he is elaborating on what I was trying to say earlier about “my own experience”.

firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9904/opinion/nuechterlein.html

This is something that WILL need to be addressed in the future if we are to have any hope of a dream close to my heart; that of all Christians worshipping in one Church.

I know a lot of serious Protestants, and none of them have read Humanae Vitae. In fact, many of them would consider reading an encyclical as bad as reading something on wiccan or paganism. I doubt very seriously that even five percent of Protestants have read this document, and probably less than 25 %of Catholics have.

And just for the record, there are many Protestants that believe birth control to be immoral. I believe the book “The Bible and Birth Control” is written by a Protestant. And there are a couple other books of this nature too. So, I don’t know that I agree with what you are saying.

 

[Redbandito]

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.

There really is no educated end to the statement, “Instead of…God could have…” Do you know how preposterous that sounds? God sees the big picture, you see a segment. You are interested in selfish ends, God is selfless by His very nature. For you to presume to say how God, who is LOVE, should have done things is at the very least arrogant. But it is bordering on all out ridiculous. No offense, but it just astounds me that we think that we could “do it better” than God. Look, God created man for Himself. He wants to share His love with us. Love is free. Thus, God had to give us free will in order that we can love as He does. With that being said, the only way to prevent evil is for God to take away our free will. Thus, God comes to us through His own divine life in grace, and gives us the strength to choose Him freely. There is no other way that God could have done it. Everything God does comes from who He is. Thus, Love could not create slaves. Love also could not create evil. However, that doesn’t stop Him from bringing good out of all evil. You need to think a little outside the box here Brother.

 

[Redbandito]

askeptic:

I don’t know. We are separated from God know and life is pretty good for many of us.

Furthermore, if God is good then he would not let people be eternally separated from him for trivialities such as remarrying after having been abandoned or using condoms.

And even if he did, he would let them continue living on earth with other people rather than enduring unimaginable torment in hell.

Again, this is ridiculous. If God did not “let” people be eternally separated, He would have taken away our free will. You can’t truly love without freedom. And what kind of a loving God would create a bunch of slaves or robots?

Hell is a state of being. It is the eternal separation of God that we have chosen. See above for argument of free will. Thus, when we sin, what we have essentially done is reject God’s love in our life. Just like any loving Father, God forgives us when we ask for His forgiveness. However, He cannot force us without doing damage to our free will.

 

[Redbandito]

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.

This is the craziest argument. The secular feminists always talk about how contraception liberates women. Oh really? So, it’s liberating to let men USE you as a means to get off without having to experience any consequences? (Sorry about the crude expression, but that’s what it really amounts to) Yeah, really liberating! Oh, so as long as you get to use them back it’s okay? Right, because two wrongs DO make a right. It seems like I care more about the well-being of women than you do Reena. I don’t want you guys to be used and abused. I want men to view you as more than just objects for their self-gratification.

Furthermore, the rates of teen and out of wedlock pregnancies, abortion, premarital sex, divorce, etc. are all exponentially higher since the mainstream acceptance of contraception in our culture. Kind of blows your theory, doesn’t it?

 

[magdelaine]

Redbandito:

I know a lot of serious Protestants, and none of them have read Humanae Vitae. In fact, many of them would consider reading an encyclical as bad as reading something on wiccan or paganism. I doubt very seriously that even five percent of Protestants have read this document, and probably less than 25 %of Catholics have.

And just for the record, there are many Protestants that believe birth control to be immoral. I believe the book “The Bible and Birth Control” is written by a Protestant. And there are a couple other books of this nature too. So, I don’t know that I agree with what you are saying.

It’s not what I was saying, it’s what this Protestant was saying of his own perspective and experience as well as knowledge of conservative Protestants. Did you read the article?

 

[Redbandito]

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.

But here is from the CE (1913): 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

Whose version of the Inquisition? There is the one that anti-Catholics report that has been distorted and exaggerated grossly out of proportion, and then there is reality. Maybe you should try reading some credible sources on the subject.

 

[fix]

magdelaine:

Ok, this is an article written by a protestant, and you may choose to ignore it for that alone. However when the writer talks about “natural law” being “that which one can not not know” and how it just doesn’t occur to him (and most Protestants) that there is a sin in using contraception he is elaborating on what I was trying to say earlier about “my own experience”.

firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9904/opinion/nuechterlein.html

This is something that WILL need to be addressed in the future if we are to have any hope of a dream close to my heart; that of all Christians worshipping in one Church.

I read the piece and I think as always it comes down to a question of authority. That the author does not perceive the evil of contraception as directly affecting him in now way means it is not affecting him. It simply means he does not see the consequences of violating the natural law.

I can’t speak specfically to the circumstances of that author, but in a general way we all can use help in obeying and understanding the natural law. As the CCC says:

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.

 

[Redbandito]

magdelaine:

It’s not what I was saying, it’s what this Protestant was saying of his own perspective and experience as well as knowledge of conservative Protestants. Did you read the article?

Nope. Just getting caught up on the thread. Sorry if I misunderstood your post or took it out of context. I’ll try and go back for the article after I get caught up.