Can this be true??

[magdelaine]

fix:

I ask whom should I follow? Is the Church speaking as Christ or are there other avenues He speaks through that contradict His Church? To whom should we follow?

As I have stated before, I have no argument with the moral teachings of HV. But maybe because I’m a convert to the Church, 5 years this coming Easter, I compare these teachings to my own experience–I don’t swallow them whole “just because it says so”. And like I said before, I have found a deep beauty and truth in the teachings of the Church. I know, from my own experience of having carried a child, that ending that life through abortion is murder. I know, from my own experience, that with each child I bear, living or dead, I learn so much, I am so redeemed by the experience, that being open to life as married people is right.

However, after considering all arguments over the past few days, I think that the application of this beautiful teaching to make illicit all use of contraceptives, with the exception of NFP, for married couples is flawed. Just as NFP can be used illicitly, I would submit that the judicious and prayerful use of contraceptives can be used licitly. It offends common sensibility to say that for a husband and wife to use a condom, for example, is tatamount to spitting in holy water. I know I’m not alone in this! (I didn’t know about the fact that the Pope overturned the Commission on Birth Control’s findings until yesterday, but obviously someone on that commission was thinking along the same lines as I am).

Although I’m not going cite a bunch of examples, it is clear that the Church CAN and DOES change over time. Not it’s basic principals and teachings on moral law, but in the specifics of application and practice. If that were not true, then VII would never have happened.

This does not upset me. I don’t buy into the idea that the baby needs to be thrown out with the bathwater with regards to this teaching. The idea that if you don’t accept this one thing is true, everything the Church teaches is untrue is naive and unworthy of thinking persons.

I know I’m not going to change your mind on this. I’m just explaining the evolution of my thoughts over the last few days…

 

[setter]

magdelaine:

As I have stated before, I have no argument with the moral teachings of HV. … I compare these teachings to my own experience–I don’t swallow them whole “just because it says so”. And like I said before, I have found a deep beauty and truth in the teachings of the Church. I know, **from my own experience ** … I know, from my own experience, that with each child I bear, living or dead, I learn so much, I am so redeemed by the experience, that being open to life as married people is right.

However, after considering all arguments over the past few days, I think that the application of this beautiful teaching to make illicit all use of contraceptives, with the exception of NFP, for married couples is flawed. Just as NFP can be used illicitly, I would submit that the judicious and prayerful use of contraceptives can be used licitly. It offends common sensibility to say that for a husband and wife to use a condom, for example, is tatamount to spitting in holy water. I know I’m not alone in this!

Bye way of simple observation and charitable feedback, it appears that the swaying criteria for your conclusion – against consistent Church teaching re: prohibition against all forms of ABC – is based on personal subjective experience. This is the underpinning belief of relativism (versus absolutism) that one’s personal experience (and preference) is the final arbitrator and determinant of what constitues right and wrong (and the absence of any objective, absolute reference for what is right/wrong, good/evil).

 

[magdelaine]

setter:

Bye way of simple observation and charitable feedback, it appears that the swaying criteria for your conclusion – against consistent Church teaching re: prohibition against all forms of ABC – is based on personal subjective experience. This is the underpinning belief of relativism (versus absolutism) that one’s personal experience (and preference) is the final arbitrator and determinant of what constitues right and wrong (and the absence of any objective, absolute reference for what is right/wrong, good/evil).

I will admit that this is certainly where the initial question started. I will also say that I am uncomfortable at this point couching my arguments in anything other than personal terms. But I could not with clear conscience say what I have without using logic and reason, especially when comparing NFP and contraception. Are you saying that when it comes to anything the Church teaches we are not to use reason? That certainly isn’t what I understand of the Churches’ history, and it’s also why I’m sure my conclusions aren’t drawn on purely relativistic terms.

 

[setter]

magdelaine:

I will admit that this is certainly where the initial question started. I will also say that I am uncomfortable at this point couching my arguments in anything other than personal terms.** But I could not with clear conscience say what I have without using logic and reason**, especially when comparing NFP and contraception. Are you saying that when it comes to anything the Church teaches we are not to use reason? That certainly isn’t what I understand of the Churches’ history, and it’s also why I’m sure my conclusions aren’t drawn on purely relativistic terms.

You properly allude to the education (and formation) of conscience. It is left up to the holy Spirit to stir, prompt and lead one who is sincerely seeking to know and live the truth and fullness of their faith. Here are a few CCC citations as my reference point:

Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings. (CCC 1793)

The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. (CCC 1794)

“All men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and his Church, and to embrace it and hold on to it as they come to know it.” (CCC 2104)

Man tends by nature toward the truth. He is obliged to honor and bear witness to it: “It is in accordance with their dignity that all men, because they are persons . . . are both impelled by their nature and bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth once they come to know it and direct their whole lives in accordance with the demands of truth.” (CCC 2467)

 

[fix]

magdelaine:

I compare these teachings to my own experience–I don’t swallow them whole “just because it says so”…

However, after considering all arguments over the past few days, I think that the application of this beautiful teaching to make illicit all use of contraceptives, with the exception of NFP, for married couples is flawed. Just as NFP can be used illicitly, I would submit that the judicious and prayerful use of contraceptives can be used licitly. It offends common sensibility to say that for a husband and wife to use a condom, for example, is tatamount to spitting in holy water.

Although I’m not going cite a bunch of examples, it is clear that the Church CAN and DOES change over time. Not it’s basic principals and teachings on moral law, but in the specifics of application and practice. If that were not true, then VII would never have happened.

This does not upset me. I don’t buy into the idea that the baby needs to be thrown out with the bathwater with regards to this teaching. The idea that if you don’t accept this one thing is true, everything the Church teaches is untrue is naive and unworthy of thinking persons.

IMO, you have highlighted the central issues in the Church at this time.

The prevalent views on contraception, to me, are simply a symptom of a greater problem. I do not want to seem to be picking specfically on you; I simply am pointing out the reasoning I often see is much like the reasoning you stated above.

If we agree that Christ speaks through His Church infallibly to guide us, but we claim we cannot properly discern what He is saying it is no better than saying there is no objective authority and we each are our own master. Can you see my point?

 

[Redbandito]

magdelaine:

Yes, I have.

I have also practiced fornication and adultry with a former Catholic in a sham marriage, gotten pregnant out of wedlock, and had sexual relations in an unmarried state from a very early age. I can tell you that these acts were, even at my most “lost” state, at some level recognizible as grave sins. That recognition is, of course, glaring in retrospect, and as I grow closer to Christ I am all the more sensitive to it.

When, after a few miscarriages, I decided to give my body a rest and used a condom with my husband, it never occured to me, then or now, that I was committing a grave sin.

My point is, you can be steeped in sin and still recognize it. I don’t think it’s as simple as “using” it, not at all.

Magdelaine, I appreciate your comments. I really do. I also participated in a lot of these things before my conversion to the Church. What I began to realize as I became more conscious of sin in my life is just how desensitized I was to the things most people in this country view as normal. Contraception is an obstacle for a lot of people, but it wasn’t for me once I understood the Catholic teaching on marriage and sexuality. IF (and I do mean if) you believe the Catholic Church is Christ’s Church, what you are essentially saying is that you believe the Catholic Church is infallible over matters of faith and morals. That is what the Church claims of itself, so to be Catholic is to accept that. Just as to be an employee of Dell means to accept the mission statement of the company and to sell or program computers. Anything outside of the mission statement of the company and your job description that is directly contradictory puts you at odds with Dell. You don’t speak from the authority given to you by Dell, you speak for yourself. That is dangerous ground, no matter what company you work for. And it’s even more dangerous when you are talking about your faith background, because this is your eternal soul at stake, not just your job. Thus, for a good Christian (and I presume Catholic?) like yourself, you just have to humble yourself and submit.

And as far as your last comment, I wouldn’t be so sure if I were you. The direct consequence of mortal sin is that we separate ourselves from sanctifying grace. Thus, our “conviction” really does become desensitized. That is the very nature of mortal sin. You might want to study up on that a bit.

 

[Palamite]

According to an old Roman Catholic moral theological guide I’ve consulted on this topic (specifically Fr.Heribert Jone’s Moral Theology), it is “ok” if a husband “completes” intercourse without satisfying his wife, for her to masturbate herself to a climax (!!), should he just roll over and fall asleep. From what I’ve read in more modern essays, I have no reason to believe this is no longer the case in contemporary RC teaching.

Now, taking this for granted I’m left wondering - what is it that allows this, but not for a man to climax during mutual intimacy with his spouse except in a way (to put it euphemistically) that is “open to life”?

The only evidence I’ve seen on this is taken from certain Church Fathers who supposedly condemn contraception. But having actually consulted some online patristics sources on these “proof texts” (like the CCEL site) I’ve noticed something - they don’t actually demonstrate the RC case. This is because they fall into three categories.

a) They’re talking about the ingestion of abortifacient drugs, not contraception.

b) They’re operating from a pre-scientific view of conception which basically understood the male “seed” (they had no idea what a sperm cell was - they just kind of figured the whole seminal emmission was one “thing”) was both a rare commodity (that it could be “wasted” - the truth is that each ejaculate contains tens of millions of sperm cells, and these are constantly being generated in the testes) and that the male seed was the sole active agent in conception. Basically, they saw the female contribution as being passive; she contributed through offering a place for the seed to grow, kind of like the soil an achorn falls in. We now know this is absolutely not the case. The sperm is not some kind of pre soul-implantation homoculi awaiting implantation - it is only half of the genetic information necessary to conceive a child. And even in a case where conception occurs, only one sperm cell is needed - the other tens of millions that were ejaculated simply die and are eventually expelled from the woman’s body.

c) There are a few Fathers who basically were of the opinion that only a very ascetical approach coming near to evangelical perfection in regard to the appetites was appropriate in Christian living. In some cases, this was just a lack of pastoral moderation (and is not characteristic of the Fathers in general, particularly those pastors like St.John Chrysostom who had a great deal to say about marriage itself and it’s value); in a few cases, it is unbalanced zealotry (read Augustine of Hippo) voicing opinions which have been simply rejected by both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches as being incorrect (ex. that unless a couple at least has the intention of having a baby, their having sexual relations is at least somewhat sinful.) Thus, citing these minority Patristic opinions is a little misleading, since their issue was not contraception per se, but married people having sexual relations for any reason but the express purpose of having a child (thus, it stands as a condemnation of NFP as well.)

IOW, while it’s a gag in very bad taste, there is some truth to the old Monthy Python lampooning of the RC position in the song “Every Sperm is Sacred”, since the official Vatican take on this topic is one that is really being dictated not by any profound, ancient knowledge pertaining to the human soul, but outdated biologies which cause scruples about “wasting the seed”.

Btw. none of this is a carte blanch as some Roman Catholics allege, for everything from homosexual sex to masturbation. The difference between those things and loving, married sex is that the latter builds up a relationship as old as humanity itself and which has been made by Christ into a Holy Mystery - while those other things only increase lust and being outside of wedlock cannot be anything but fornication (Greek pornea.) I find it very distressing that otherwise intelligent people cannot see the difference between married love making and homosexual sins; or I should say, all they see as being different between them is that one cannot make babies. A very demeaning view of “male and female He created them” indeed.

 

[Redbandito]

BillP:

No you need to pay attention. The CCC doesn’t say we need to treat slaves well, it says slavery is forbidden because it inherently disregards their personal dignity. There is simply no way to hold a man as a slave and claim that you’re upholding their personal dignity. Come on be real.

I honestly can’t believe that its the 21st century and I’m arguing with a fellow Catholic that sincerely doens’t see anything wrong wiht slavery. Do you honestly believe the Church teaches that slavery is morally acceptable?

Tell you what. Why don’t you post that question in ask an apologist?

What??? You really are just coming up with your own strawman arguments. Believe in slavery??? NO! I don’t believe in slavery. The Church doesn’t accept it either. I was simply dissecting your argument. Which I did. You are simply changing the subject by attacking my personal views now, which I have not even expressed yet. I didn’t go into a comprehensive explanation of it. Your objections on the Church accepting slavery have been refuted. Move on.

BTW, this topic has no place on this thread.

 

[Redbandito]

BillP:

Problem with that quote is that no one is arguing about that. We’re, well, I’m discussing slavery. As the Romans practiced it, and as the European Colonies in the New World practiced it and as it was practiced in the American South.

Are you saying that the Church didn’t condone and support slavery in those tiems and places?

Don’t give me any moral sophistry about involuntary servitude, indentured servants or civil and military prisoners. I stipulate that thsoe instututions exist but their moral status is irrelevant to this discussion.

That’s totally bologna BillP. You are backtracking now. How can you claim that you have been talking about the Romans and European Colonies when your argument has been based on two 20th century documents?

 

[magdelaine]

fix:

IMO, you have highlighted the central issues in the Church at this time.

The prevalent views on contraception, to me, are simply a symptom of a greater problem. I do not want to seem to be picking specfically on you; I simply am pointing out the reasoning I often see is much like the reasoning you stated above.

If we agree that Christ speaks through His Church infallibly to guide us, but we claim we cannot properly discern what He is saying it is no better than saying there is no objective authority and we each are our own master. Can you see my point?

Oh yes, I can… I think that is precisely why this teaching on contraception needs to be revisited. It is a distraction from the underlying teachings of HV and causes doubt of this authority among the faithful.

Why? Not because of relativism or the culture of contraception or whatever, but because this teaching offends common sensibility and, yes, conscience. Thanks to Setter for providing the definitions of conscience–it is exactly the formation of conscience which I have been eager lately to undertake that recoils against this teaching. My point in saying that there are others that feel the way I do is NOT my attempt to justify my feelings by sheer numbers…but an attempt to say that there is something “not right” here that needs to be addressed.

Now just because I think this now does not mean that this is the end of the argument for me. I will continue to study and pray on this issue, and ask the Holy Spirit for guidance…Who knows? Maybe I will be enlightened…

I can tell you right now, it ain’t happening.

 

[Redbandito]

magdelaine:

As I have stated before, I have no argument with the moral teachings of HV. But maybe because I’m a convert to the Church, 5 years this coming Easter, I compare these teachings to my own experience–I don’t swallow them whole “just because it says so”. And like I said before, I have found a deep beauty and truth in the teachings of the Church. I know, from my own experience of having carried a child, that ending that life through abortion is murder. I know, from my own experience, that with each child I bear, living or dead, I learn so much, I am so redeemed by the experience, that being open to life as married people is right.

However, after considering all arguments over the past few days, I think that the application of this beautiful teaching to make illicit all use of contraceptives, with the exception of NFP, for married couples is flawed. Just as NFP can be used illicitly, I would submit that the judicious and prayerful use of contraceptives can be used licitly. It offends common sensibility to say that for a husband and wife to use a condom, for example, is tatamount to spitting in holy water. I know I’m not alone in this! (I didn’t know about the fact that the Pope overturned the Commission on Birth Control’s findings until yesterday, but obviously someone on that commission was thinking along the same lines as I am).

Although I’m not going cite a bunch of examples, it is clear that the Church CAN and DOES change over time. Not it’s basic principals and teachings on moral law, but in the specifics of application and practice. If that were not true, then VII would never have happened.

This does not upset me. I don’t buy into the idea that the baby needs to be thrown out with the bathwater with regards to this teaching. The idea that if you don’t accept this one thing is true, everything the Church teaches is untrue is naive and unworthy of thinking persons.

I know I’m not going to change your mind on this. I’m just explaining the evolution of my thoughts over the last few days…

So YOUR fallible and incorrectly formed conscience is the basis for your judging which of the Church’s teachings are correct and which aren’t?

 

[Redbandito]

magdelaine:

Oh yes, I can… I think that is precisely why this teaching on contraception needs to be revisited. It is a distraction from the underlying teachings of HV and causes doubt of this authority among the faithful.

Why? Not because of relativism or the culture of contraception or whatever, but because this teaching offends common sensibility and, yes, conscience. Thanks to Setter for providing the definitions of conscience–it is exactly the formation of conscience which I have been eager lately to undertake that recoils against this teaching. My point in saying that there are others that feel the way I do is NOT my attempt to justify my feelings by sheer numbers…but an attempt to say that there is something “not right” here that needs to be addressed.

Now just because I think this now does not mean that this is the end of the argument for me. I will continue to study and pray on this issue, and ask the Holy Spirit for guidance…Who knows? Maybe I will be enlightened…

I can tell you right now, it ain’t happening.

What? Not relativism? This is the definition of relativism. “What’s true for you is true for you, and what’s true for me is true for me”. It’s all relative to your own conscience.

And if you don’t believe contraception is at the heart of HV, either you need to read it or re-read it, because you aren’t understanding it. This teaching on contraception ain’t going anywhere.

 

[Redbandito]

magdelaine:

I will admit that this is certainly where the initial question started. I will also say that I am uncomfortable at this point couching my arguments in anything other than personal terms. But I could not with clear conscience say what I have without using logic and reason, especially when comparing NFP and contraception. Are you saying that when it comes to anything the Church teaches we are not to use reason? That certainly isn’t what I understand of the Churches’ history, and it’s also why I’m sure my conclusions aren’t drawn on purely relativistic terms.

You are to use logic and reason to understand WHY the Church teaches it, not to take you outside of the Church’s authority over matters of faith and morals.

 

[Redbandito]

magdelaine:

Oh yes, I can… I think that is precisely why this teaching on contraception needs to be revisited. It is a distraction from the underlying teachings of HV and causes doubt of this authority among the faithful.

Why? Not because of relativism or the culture of contraception or whatever, but because this teaching offends common sensibility and, yes, conscience. Thanks to Setter for providing the definitions of conscience–it is exactly the formation of conscience which I have been eager lately to undertake that recoils against this teaching. My point in saying that there are others that feel the way I do is NOT my attempt to justify my feelings by sheer numbers…but an attempt to say that there is something “not right” here that needs to be addressed.

Now just because I think this now does not mean that this is the end of the argument for me. I will continue to study and pray on this issue, and ask the Holy Spirit for guidance…Who knows? Maybe I will be enlightened…

I can tell you right now, it ain’t happening.

Setter’s citations do not support your idea of conscience. A “properly formed conscience” is one that understands and submits to the mandatory public revelation delivered to us through the Church. From there, our conscience guides us to when we have violated these. There is a difference between that and what you are saying. You are saying your conscience is guiding you as to which parts of the mandatory public revelation you must accept. This is whole-heartedly different and blatantly wrong.

 

[magdelaine]

Redbandito:

You are saying your conscience is guiding you as to which parts of the mandatory public revelation you must accept. This is whole-heartedly different and blatantly wrong.

Ok, you’re right. I will simply stop thinking altogether. I will tell all my brethren to stop thinking as well, as that can only lead to error. Thanks for your help!

 

[fix]

magdelaine:

It is a distraction from the underlying teachings of HV and causes doubt of this authority among the faithful.

Can you explain what you mean? I am not understanding for point.

but an attempt to say that there is something “not right” here that needs to be addressed.

Here is one piece that I thought may be relevant to the discussion.

**The Inconvenient Conscience

**…Conscience looks for real answers to our questions, and where can it look except to the truth? But then the value of conscience surely lies not in conscience itself but in the truth to which conscience looks for answers. It is the truth that is primary, and it is from the truth that conscience takes its value—for the bare fact that something is my private belief has no moral significance whatsoever…

Why do people strain to accommodate absolute sexual freedom as a matter of conscience? Why does no one plead for the right to racism or sexism as a matter of conscience? …
firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0505/articles/pell.html

 

[bear06]

OK, for those of you who do not see that HV is infallible, do you believe it at least to be disciplinary?

 

[luvmykids]

I found this link interesting. rtforum.org/lt/lt12.html#II

 

[bear06]

luvmykids:

I found this link interesting. rtforum.org/lt/lt12.html#II

Great article. Everything I’ve been saying in one, little, articulate piece!

 

[Philthy]

Hi Askeptic! :tiphat:

I have patiently read all of the posts before responding. I hope you dont take my comments as being too harsh - they are merely my opinion based on this thread.
You and RedBandito have not found much common ground. The reason for this, is that your perspective appears to lack an acknowledge of God as the central reference point for meaning in our lives. We can argue the validity of that perspective, but without it you will not make sense of Church teaching and you will not convince anyone with a God-centered perspective that what you propose is, in fact, logical.
Need an example? Take your inability to understand the difference between NFP and artificial contraception. Why? You dont even consider God in the picture: you simply look at the relationship between the man and the woman. It does not seem to concern you that God has established an order and rules and that consideration of His perspective should not only be considered, but should be at the top of the list.
In addition, your perspective seems incredibly limited, both temporally, geographically and culturally. You speak as if the world began about the time your parents were 20 and at the place where you grew up. I would be shocked if you were not a white American and if you were not younger than 28.
You do have some reasonable analytical skills, but your lack of perspective and inability to recognize the inherent limitations that places on your contributions leads you to some poor conclusions and overconfidence in them.

askeptic:

I agree, they are correlational. But there is also an obvious mechanism for a possible causal effect: namely that pregnancy and children take away from the complete investment of individual time necessary to achieve the highest levels of success.

Notice how you consider “the highest levels of success” to be career oriented? Only someone who has yet to experience the meaninglessness of a career - relative to the meaningfullness of human relationships, most acutely expressed in the context of family - would make such a statement. I used to think this way also - all I can say is, “Welcome to the Machine”.

askeptic:

As someone who is a student and whose father was involved in the highest level of academics, I know very well that in order to be successful in intellectually demanding fields you must commit ALL OF YOUR TIME to them. People who are not willing to do that generally don’t make it to the top. Women who are pregnant and have young kids will need to sacrifice time that would otherwise go toward research and study.

How many people can be the best? Not very many. All this insight that you are tenaciously holding on to, applies to no more than 1% of the population. If being “top in your field” is a key component of “success” and happiness, 99% of people will be unhappy and unsuccessful. I do think striving to be your best is important, but believing that academic or material success is the gateway to a lifetime of happiness for more than a few people is a
fantasy.