Catholicism can and must change, Francis forcefully tells Italian church gathering

[clem456]

clem

So by this couples who use “Natural Family Planing” are committing evil ?

NFP is not contraception so how could it be evil?

Remember, Humanae Vitae spoke about “artificial birth control,” so we need to stay in that context.

But even here, many theologians say that the Encyclical is not infallible and in fact, Pope Paul VI had put together a commission to study ABC. Their report supported its use for married couples under certain circumstances.

Its said that the Pope was advised not to use the commissions report for he would undermine the authority of the Papacy where future generations would look for reports from a commission rather than the teaching authority of the Pope.

Either way, its what the Church today teaches and ABC for preventing pregnancy is considered a sin.

**This is different than the use of hormone therapy to treat a disorder.
**
Jim

Right. This has been said by 10 different posters 16 different ways.
Not sure what the problem is…

 

[clem456]

Contra (against)- ception (conception…birth…fertility)
The Church uses contraception to mean intentionally sterilizing the sex act.
Abstinence by nature is not a procreative process, or act, because it is non-act.
NFP is not a disordered use, it is simply times of “not-use”.

Contraception frustrates the act itself, it intends to use the act while frustrating nature’s God given design for the act.

Has nothing to do with the nature of chemicals etc,as has been noted. It has everything to do with intent.
Contraception promotes the utilitarian view of sexuality, that a person is an object to be used outside God’s natural design. Contraception detracts from the God given dignity of the human person.

 

[pnewton]

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 an interesting thought. I will use this in the future. Even when speaking of intrinsic evil, there need be some action on the part of man, as in, certain actions are intrinsically evil. Perhaps this is why so few things are intrinsically evil. Most evil has to spring from the heart of Man, for only in Man’s rejection of the moral order can we find something which God could not have created.

I find that more and more Pope Francis has challenged me to think beyond the simplistic, one-line answers.

 

[clem456]

This is an interesting thought. I will use this in the future. Even when speaking of intrinsic evil, there need be some action on the part of man, as in, certain actions are intrinsically evil. Perhaps this is why so few things are intrinsically evil. Most evil has to spring from the heart of Man, for only in Man’s rejection of the moral order can we find something which God could not have created.

I find that more and more Pope Francis has challenged me to think beyond the simplistic, one-line answers.

The rejection of simplicity might be the most pressing problem of our time, when everyone has access to mountains of information, and has numerous outlets for self expression.
As human beings we deceive ourselves out of pride, that we need our own formulations and elaborate constructions to know Christ. The Church is Christ’s body. The Church proclaims a person in it’s teaching.

God is simple. His revelation is simple. Note that simple is not the same thing as “easy to accept”. Simple is not the same thing as “simplistic”.
“:God is love”. Very simple.
“Love one another…” Very simple.
Neither is simplistic.
Judging by our human experience, we will continue to re-define God as we will, as we build idols in our own image, according to our own elaborate thoughts and constructs.

Benedict’s exhortation might be the most pressing of our time:

Being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction.

 

[Thomas_White]

clem

So by this couples who use “Natural Family Planing” are committing evil ?

Yes, it would be the case if contraception were intrinsically evil.

JimR-OCDS:

Remember, Humanae Vitae spoke about “artificial birth control,” so we need to stay in that context.

But even here, many theologians say that the Encyclical is not infallible and in fact, Pope Paul VI had put together a commission to study ABC. Their report supported its use for married couples under certain circumstances.

Its said that the Pope was advised not to use the commissions report for he would undermine the authority of the Papacy where future generations would look for reports from a commission rather than the teaching authority of the Pope.

This is also correct. It was also well understood this was the case.

JimR-OCDS:

Either way, its what the Church today teaches and ABC for preventing pregnancy is considered a sin.

This is different than the use of hormone therapy to treat a disorder.

It of course is different, but if contraception were intrinsically evil, so would use of the birth control pill be evil since in fact it is a contraceptive device. The intent of the user would be irrelevant.

The same logic that maintains that intent is relevant (and therefore that use of a contraceptive device in such circumstances is not a sinful act) would apply in the case of a divorced and remarried person who receives communion when the person does not believe in the transsubstantiation of the Eucharist (and therefore believes receiving communion is not for them a sinful act). According to numerous polls, 70% of Catholics do not believe in the transubstantiation of the Eucharist.

 

[pnewton]

The rejection of simplicity might be the most pressing problem of our time,

Well, I will continue with my own philosophy on this, as I disagree completely, especially when it comes to sin. We humans have been told that we lack the understanding to judge other. Perhaps I just fail, and refuse to consider, the nuance between simple and simplistic. My use of the word has nothing to do with the possible length of sentences and formulae. My use is the reliance on such formulae as a black and white guide be which we judge actions, specifically the actions of others, as either morally good or morally bad.

 

[clem456]

Well, I will continue with my own philosophy on this, as I disagree completely, especially when it comes to sin. We humans have been told that we lack the understanding to judge other. Perhaps I just fail, and refuse to consider, the nuance between simple and simplistic. My use of the word has nothing to do with the possible length of sentences and formulae. My use is the reliance on such formulae as a black and white guide be which we judge actions, specifically the actions of others, as either morally good or morally bad.

We don’t judge a soul. God is judge of souls. We make prudential judgments, we don’t pass judgment.

I’m not sure why you mix this in with the simple nature of the Church’s teaching.

The Gospel is not formulae, it is a proposition, an offer, an invitation, to come to know a person, Jesus Christ.

 

[Thomas_White]

Well, I will continue with my own philosophy on this, as I disagree completely, especially when it comes to sin. We humans have been told that we lack the understanding to judge other. Perhaps I just fail, and refuse to consider, the nuance between simple and simplistic. My use of the word has nothing to do with the possible length of sentences and formulae. My use is the reliance on such formulae as a black and white guide be which we judge actions, specifically the actions of others, as either morally good or morally bad.

I agree. In the case of the use of ABC for medical reasons, it would be simplistic to conclude the person doesn’t also find it very convenient that it is also a contraceptive device. The same is true of a divorced and remarried person who has not obtained an annullment but wishes to receive communion. It isn’t known to others what the person believes–for instance whether the belief is that the first marriage was invalid or that the receipt of communion is not sinful for him.

As the Gospel of Matthew informs us, we ought to first take the beam out of our own eye before we judge others. If the teaching is understood, ‘for man this is not possible’.

 

[clem456]

I agree. In the case of the use of ABC for medical reasons, it would be simplistic to conclude the person doesn’t also find it very convenient that it is also a contraceptive device. The same is true of a divorced and remarried person who has not obtained an annullment but wishes to receive communion. It isn’t known to others what the person believes–for instance whether the belief is that the first marriage was invalid or that the receipt of communion is not sinful for him.

As the Gospel of Matthew informs us, we ought to first take the beam out of our own eye before we judge others. If the teaching is understood, ‘for man this is not possible’.

Yes, it is good not to judge others.
We have no idea if a person with medical necessity is abusing the medication as contraception. Hopefully with good information they will not be confused on what the Church teaches.

We simply could not know if they intend to contracept . So,

Anyway, not sure why you brought this issue up.
But it is pointless to assume they are abusing medication and judge them, cause…how would you know?
You are not assuming this, right?

 

[Thomas_White]

Yes, it is good not to judge others.
We have no idea if a person with medical necessity is abusing the medication as contraception. Hopefully with good information they will not be confused on what the Church teaches.

We simply could not know if they intend to contracept . So,

Anyway, not sure why you brought this issue up.
But it is pointless to assume they are abusing medication and judge them, cause…how would you know?
You are not assuming this, right?

I am glad we have all come to realize what contraception is, and that the Church teaches contraception is intrinsically evil.

:juggle:

 

[clem456]

:juggle:

You quoted my post and responded with an emoticon.

Can you have the courtesy to address the posts?
Are you interested in having a discussion or not?

You brought this issue up, no one else.

 

[pnewton]

As the Gospel of Matthew informs us, we ought to first take the beam out of our own eye before we judge others. If the teaching is understood, ‘for man this is not possible’.

When you mention this, it brought to mind a portion of Scripture from 1 Corinthians 11 where, in the passage that mentions the danger of receiving unworthily, St. Paul tells us, “Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.” Here we see the clear teaching that this synod brought out - the key role of self-examination. St. Paul was the apostle of Christian freedom. This said, he was also quite adamant about the Church disassociating from scandalous behavior.

 

[Ender]

It of course is different, but if contraception were intrinsically evil, so would use of the birth control pill be evil since in fact it is a contraceptive device. The intent of the user would be irrelevant.

You are conflating two different concepts, and speaking as if they were the same thing. Intent is part of the act even as it is separate from the particular action. The action of taking a contraceptive pill is not intrinsically evil; the act becomes evil if it is taken with the intent of preventing conception. Shooting someone is not intrinsically evil even though murder is, because murder includes the intent behind the action.

The same logic that maintains that intent is relevant (and therefore that use of a contraceptive device in such circumstances is not a sinful act)…

Except…the intent is indeed relevant.

… would apply in the case of a divorced and remarried person who receives communion when the person does not believe in the transsubstantiation of the Eucharist (and therefore believes receiving communion is not for them a sinful act).

A good intent does not permit us to commit an act that is forbidden.1753 *A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just.
*Since it is in fact sinful to receive communion in a state of grave sin, a divorced and remarried person who receives commits a grave sin regardless of their opinion on the matter. Their opinion is as irrelevant here as in the case where someone uses contraception believing it is not wrong to do so. In both cases, sins have been committed.

Ender

 

[clem456]

When you mention this, it brought to mind a portion of Scripture from 1 Corinthians 11 where, in the passage that mentions the danger of receiving unworthily, St. Paul tells us, “Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.” Here we see the clear teaching that this synod brought out - the key role of self-examination.

It is good to allow the light of day to shine on one’s self, to see, to hear, to know the light of day and from who it comes. That light of self-examination is a grace, a gift from God. The only light which can give truth to one’s self image is the one who’s image we are created in: God.
Self examination opens our eyes to something “other” than ourselves, it opens us up to the Good. Self examination does not have the personal self as it’s goal and end. (Not saying you are claiming that, but it is a consistent theme in our culture and on the forums)

I. THE JUDGMENT OF CONSCIENCE

1777 Moral conscience,48 present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil.49 It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking.

1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law:

Conscience is a law of the mind; yet [Christians] would not grant that it is nothing more; I mean that it was not a dictate, nor conveyed the notion of responsibility, of duty, of a threat and a promise. . . . [Conscience] is a **messenger of him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ.**50
1779 It is important for every person to be sufficiently present to himself in order to hear and follow the voice of his conscience. This requirement of interiority is all the more necessary as life often distracts us from any reflection, self-examination or introspection:

Return to your conscience, question it. . . . Turn inward, brethren, and in everything you do, see God as your witness.51
…
We shall . . . reassure our hearts before him whenever our hearts condemn us; for God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.52

 

[Thomas_White]

You are conflating two different concepts, and speaking as if they were the same thing. Intent is part of the act even as it is separate from the particular action. The action of taking a contraceptive pill is not intrinsically evil; the act becomes evil if it is taken with the intent of preventing conception. Shooting someone is not intrinsically evil even though murder is, because murder includes the intent behind the action.
Except…the intent is indeed relevant.
A good intent does not permit us to commit an act that is forbidden.1753 *A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just.
*Since it is in fact sinful to receive communion in a state of grave sin, a divorced and remarried person who receives commits a grave sin regardless of their opinion on the matter. Their opinion is as irrelevant here as in the case where someone uses contraception believing it is not wrong to do so. In both cases, sins have been committed.

Ender

Either contraception is intrinsically evil or it is not. Using a contraceptive pill is contraception. Why is this so difficult to understand? Intent has nothing to do with it if contraception is intrisically evil.

It is a simple point. Using an oral contraceptive is in and of itself by definition contraception. Is its use then ever justified? No, not if contraception is intrinsically evil because using an oral contraception is contraception. So, the question then is whether contraception is actually in itself an intrinsic evil if the intent of its use is for a medical reason. It cannot be true both ways.

 

[clem456]

Either contraception is intrinsically evil or it is not. Using a contraceptive pill is contraception. Why is this so difficult to understand? Intent has nothing to do with it if contraception is intrisically evil.

It is a simple point. Using an oral contraceptive is in and of itself by definition contraception. Is its use then ever justified? No, not if contraception is intrinsically evil because using an oral contraception is contraception. So, the question then is whether contraception is actually in itself an intrinsic evil if the intent of its use is for a medical reason. It cannot be true both ways.

Please read back over the posts that have plainly addressed this question numerous times in numerous ways.
You are conflating:

Medication
Contraception
Intent
“Intrinsic evil” erroneously applied to inanimate material
Unintended consequences
Double effect

Given your logic, by analogy, your body is intrinsically evil, because you sin. The Church does not believe that God’s creation is evil.

 

[pnewton]

It is good to allow the light of day to shine on one’s self, to see, to hear, to know the light of day and from who it comes.

I have always found the writings of Paul useful, especially when read in big chunks, like it was written.

 

[clem456]

A summation:

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

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.

Ender

Medication taken to solve a medical problem is not “contraception”. Contraception has been loosely used to mean “substance that prevents fertility”. Contraception is not a substance, it is an act which utilizes a substance. The substance is not evil, the act using the substance is.

As an unintended and unavoidable consequence, these medications might interfere with fertility. That is not immoral.
Here is the Church teaching on the morality of human acts:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm

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.

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.

Is there a church teaching that specifically states that the chemicals themselves are intrinsically evil?

My understanding is the chemicals themselves are not evil, it’s the use of them for evil purposes such as contraception that makes the act evil.

Kinda like when someone is stabbed, is the knife evil or the act of using the knife for that purpose evil? (sorry to use such a dramatic e.g but i’m a bit of a simpleton).

Using this flawed logic…
Your body is intrinsically evil because you use it to sin like everyone else.
This is called Jansenism.

Substances cannot be intrinsically evil.
Contraception is evil.
The Church has a clear and simple teaching on morality in the Catechism.
Grave matter
Intent
Knowledge and consent
Nothing about substances in morality.
God created the material world good.

Catechism is referenced above. Any comments on it?

Contra (against)- ception (conception…birth…fertility)
The Church uses contraception to mean intentionally sterilizing the sex act.
Abstinence by nature is not a procreative process, or act, because it is non-act.
NFP is not a disordered use, it is simply times of “not-use”.

Contraception frustrates the act itself, it intends to use the act while frustrating nature’s God given design for the act.

Has nothing to do with the nature of chemicals etc,as has been noted. It has everything to do with intent.
Contraception promotes the utilitarian view of sexuality, that a person is an object to be used outside God’s natural design. Contraception detracts from the God given dignity of the human person.

You are conflating two different concepts, and speaking as if they were the same thing. Intent is part of the act even as it is separate from the particular action. The action of taking a contraceptive pill is not intrinsically evil; the act becomes evil if it is taken with the intent of preventing conception. Shooting someone is not intrinsically evil even though murder is, because murder includes the intent behind the action.
Except…the intent is indeed relevant.
A good intent does not permit us to commit an act that is forbidden.1753 *A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just.
*Since it is in fact sinful to receive communion in a state of grave sin, a divorced and remarried person who receives commits a grave sin regardless of their opinion on the matter. Their opinion is as irrelevant here as in the case where someone uses contraception believing it is not wrong to do so. In both cases, sins have been committed.

Ender

 

[clem456]

I have always found the writings of Paul useful, especially when read in big chunks, like it was written.

My current “light of day” passage is 2 Corinthians chapter 12 “your grace is sufficient…”

 

[zab]

I agree. In the case of the use of ABC for medical reasons, it would be simplistic to conclude the person doesn’t also find it very convenient that it is also a contraceptive device. The same is true of a divorced and remarried person who has not obtained an annullment but wishes to receive communion. It isn’t known to others what the person believes–for instance whether the belief is that the first marriage was invalid or that the receipt of communion is not sinful for him.

As the Gospel of Matthew informs us, we ought to first take the beam out of our own eye before we judge others. If the teaching is understood, ‘for man this is not possible’.

I was past my childbearing years after going through menopause and was prescribed the pill and estrogen. It is ironic that “the doctor she” basically told me that I had a choice of taking the pill to help prevent heart disease and if I didn’t take it there was a chance of getting breast cancer. I took it for one month, then my period started up again. Heck with that! I decided that God knew what he was doing when he made woman. I haven’t taken any of that medication since. Unfortunately a few of my aging friends did continue taking it and ended up with breast cancer. If I had followed the doctors orders in taking the prescriptions , I would not have been guilty of taking the pill for contraception. But I do believe it would not have been healthy for my body.