Well put.In contrast to this thread which says Catholicism must and can change, we have another thread “Give ‘clear instructions about doctrine and morals,’ Pope tells Slovakia’s bishops.’”
So it seems to me that the Pope isn’t saying that our teachings will change, but that we must change. He especially mentioned about the face of Jesus, that we should look at it and remember the love Jesus showed to others so we can be more in his image. That is more open to understanding others and being kind to them in their needs. So that Catholocism consists more than just knowing its teachings. It means softening our heart.
I have no idea what Pope Francis meant by it, but I would be interested in knowing what you mean by “legalism.”I’d like to see more spirituality in our church and less legalism. I’m beginning to see the legalism as I never did before. I’m not happy with legalism. If you don’t understand what I or Pope Francis means by that, well, we could discuss that - but not what type of Catholic I am.
I am not intimidated by what you try to express, but alarmed. Many of the statements seem to contradict the teachings of the Church.I’ve asked several times why some are so intimidated by what I try to express. I never get an answer.Code:Well put.
The two are not mutually exclusive, Fran. Jesus created people with a need for rules and regulations. He gave them to us as soon as we were created, then when they were broken, enforced consequences. It is part of our nature.Rules are an easier way… But, to me, not preferable.Code:I think, maybe, some people are afraid of having to live WITHOUT rules and regulations (not that it would ever really happen) and just having to depend on their own rapport with Jesus and instinctively knowing how to live for Him.
Fran
What you said is the best I have read on this thread so far. Truth will never all of a sudden evolves into falsehood. Otherwise, it has never been the truth. What was morally evil according to the Gospel and Church’s teaching can never all of a sudden becomes new normal…Doctrines can develop, but what is known to be true will never become false.
No development of doctrine will ever declare that the Holy Trinity is FOUR persons in one Godhead, nor any new understanding of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation will ever declare that the Eucharist is anything other than the full and complete Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.
Everything that we know to be true will forever continue to be true.
Mary will forever more be the Mother of God, and has been since the Annunciation. We might understand her role more fully, and declare NEW titles for her, like Mediatrix of All Graces. But what is previously known will never cease to be true.
Artificial Contraception will always be intrinsically immoral and has been since the creation of Time itself. We might gain new insights into other acts that are intrinsically evil, but no new understanding of a doctrine will ever make what is evil into good. or even morally neutral.
How, for instance, would artificial contraception be intrinsically immoral when the Church recognizes that in cases it is a medical necessity?What you said is the best I have read on this thread so far. Truth will never all of a sudden evolves into falsehood. Otherwise, it has never been the truth. What was morally evil according to the Gospel and Church’s teaching can never all of a sudden becomes new normal…
If it is used as a medical necessity, it is being used for some purpose other than contraception. The purpose and effect in such a case is directed at a medical outcome other than destroying the integrity of marital relations.How, for instance, would artificial contraception be intrinsically immoral when the Church recognizes that in cases it is a medical necessity?
This is perhaps true, but contraception also occurs. Is that reality intrinsically evil?If it is used as a medical necessity, it is being used for some purpose other than contraception. The purpose and effect in such a case is directed at a medical outcome other than destroying the integrity of marital relations.
This is a good answer and addresses differences that exists because of loosely defined terms. No chemical substance that is used for contraception is intrinsically evil. It is just a chemical. When we speak of “contraception”, we not only speak of a physical chemical (or device) but also of an intent than defines “contraception”.If it is used as a medical necessity, it is being used for some purpose other than contraception. The purpose and effect in such a case is directed at a medical outcome other than destroying the integrity of marital relations.
This is perhaps true, but contraception also occurs. Is that reality intrinsically evil?
2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:159
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htmCode:Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160
This problem is not all that complicated in that the church has provided an explanation for this category of concerns. The principle of double effect determines the validity of the act. We may do something that has both a good and an evil aspect so long as specific conditions are met. Taking a pill that has a contraceptive effect is legitimate so long as it is necessary to relieve a medical problem. The intent in such a case is not to inhibit conception, but to heal the body.This is a good answer and addresses differences that exists because of loosely defined terms. No chemical substance that is used for contraception is intrinsically evil. It is just a chemical. When we speak of “contraception”, we not only speak of a physical chemical (or device) but also of an intent than defines “contraception”.
The larger point was discussed long ago by Augustine in his Confessions, and it concerns whether God could have created intrinsic evil in his good Creation. Augustine argued it was man’s misuse of the good that resulted in evil.This is a good answer and addresses differences that exists because of loosely defined terms. No chemical substance that is used for contraception is intrinsically evil. It is just a chemical. When we speak of “contraception”, we not only speak of a physical chemical (or device) but also of an intent than defines “contraception”.
The Church has already settled the matter of double effect. There are certain necessary medical procedures that result in the death of the fetus.How, for instance, would artificial contraception be intrinsically immoral when the Church recognizes that in cases it is a medical necessity?
There are many medical interventions that reduce the ability to conceive. Taking a pill for the purpose of interfereing with conception (contraception) is intrinsically wrong.This is perhaps true, but contraception also occurs. Is that reality intrinsically evil?
The discussion concerns contraception and not abortion.The Church has already settled the matter of double effect. There are certain necessary medical procedures that result in the death of the fetus.
See Part 85.
Contraception will always be intrinsically immoral.
Contraception either or is not intrinsically wrong. If it is intrinsically wrong, it is always wrong. An intrinsic property is a property of a material itself, and either the chemicals in a birth control pill are intrinsically evil or they are not.There are many medical interventions that reduce the ability to conceive. Taking a pill for the purpose of interfereing with conception (contraception) is intrinsically wrong.
Contraception is wrong, as stated by the church.The discussion concerns contraception and not abortion.
Contraception either or is not intrinsically wrong. If it is intrinsically wrong, it is always wrong. An intrinsic property is a property of a material itself, and either the chemicals in a birth control pill are intrinsically evil or they are not.
If the chemicals in a birth control pill are intrinsically evil, how would you explain this intrinsic evil in God’s creation?
Hi Ender,I have no idea what Pope Francis meant by it, but I would be interested in knowing what you mean by “legalism.”
Ender
Using this flawed logic…The discussion concerns contraception and not abortion.
Contraception either or is not intrinsically wrong. If it is intrinsically wrong, it is always wrong. An intrinsic property is a property of a material itself, and either the chemicals in a birth control pill are intrinsically evil or they are not.
If the chemicals in a birth control pill are intrinsically evil, how would you explain this intrinsic evil in God’s creation?
So by this couples who use “Natural Family Planing” are committing evil ?Contraception is evil.