You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Catholicism can and must change, Francis forcefully tells Italian church gathering
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
Hormone therapy, or the pill, is often used to help a female cycle to become regular, so that she can become pregnant.
In my wife and myself younger days, the doctor did this after she miscarried three times.
Finally, bingo, we had our first child, who is now 40 years old.
Hormone therapy isn’t always to prevent pregnancy, but to help the health of the woman she she can become pregnant in time.
At this point, as my priest told us, its between my wife and our doctor and up to our conscience.
Jim
In my wife and myself younger days, the doctor did this after she miscarried three times.
Finally, bingo, we had our first child, who is now 40 years old.
Hormone therapy isn’t always to prevent pregnancy, but to help the health of the woman she she can become pregnant in time.
At this point, as my priest told us, its between my wife and our doctor and up to our conscience.
Jim
E
Ender
Guest
This is trueEither contraception is intrinsically evil or it is not.
This is not true. If a woman takes a contraceptive pill to treat a medical condition, but does not have sexual relations while the pill is active she has rather obviously not contracepted, so the simple act of using a contraceptive pill is not contraception.Using a contraceptive pill is contraception.
Indeed.Why is this so difficult to understand?
Murder is intrinsically evil, but killing someone is not always murder. Intent is very much a part of what defines a murder, even though the result of the act is the same regardless of the intent. The same is true with taking medicine that has more than one effect.Intent has nothing to do with it if contraception is intrisically evil.
It is this simple point that you have gotten wrong.It is a simple point. Using an oral contraceptive is in and of itself by definition contraception.
Ender
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Evil is evil. To say specific acts are intrinsically evil doesn’t say anything more, IMHO, and the attempt to define specific acts as intrinsically evil only results in confounding attempts to explain why this is so since there are always exceptions.This is true
This is not true. If a woman takes a contraceptive pill to treat a medical condition, but does not have sexual relations while the pill is active she has rather obviously not contracepted, so the simple act of using a contraceptive pill is not contraception.
Indeed.
Murder is intrinsically evil, but killing someone is not always murder. Intent is very much a part of what defines a murder, even though the result of the act is the same regardless of the intent. The same is true with taking medicine that has more than one effect.
It is this simple point that you have gotten wrong.
Ender
But evil is evil, and evil is the result of the actions of man. There is a broader theological argument (e.g., liberation theology) that maintains that structures and organizations can be evil, but I doubt it. Structures and organizations do not have a soul, and neither do concepts. To say murder is intrinsically evil but killing someone is not always murder since it involves intent, although the result of the act is the same, only illustrates the point.
B
Brendan
Guest
That is not true. The specific act is always evil. The key word there is SPECIFIC. The act that is evil is specified. Acts that do not meet those specific details are not the specified act.Evil is evil. To say specific acts are intrinsically evil doesn’t say anything more, IMHO, and the attempt to define specific acts as intrinsically evil only results in confounding attempts to explain why this is so since there are always exceptions…
C
clem456
Guest
Already addressed.Evil is evil. To say specific acts are intrinsically evil doesn’t say anything more, IMHO, and the attempt to define specific acts as intrinsically evil only results in confounding attempts to explain why this is so since there are always exceptions.
The catechism says:But evil is evil, and evil is the result of the actions of man. There is a broader theological argument (e.g., liberation theology) that maintains that structures and organizations can be evil, but I doubt it. Structures and organizations do not have a soul, and neither do concepts.
…
1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:
- by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
- by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
- by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
- by protecting evil-doers.
1869 Thus sin makes men accomplices of one another and causes concupiscence, violence, and injustice to reign among them. **Sins give rise to social situations and institutions that are contrary to the divine goodness. “Structures of sin” are the expression and effect of personal sins. They lead their victims to do evil in their turn. In an analogous sense, they constitute a “social sin.”**144
C
clem456
Guest
Addressing the confusion over the nature of the created world (the impossibility of substances being inherently evil):
God creates an ordered and good world
299 Because God creates through wisdom, his creation is ordered: "You have arranged all things by measure and number and weight."151 The universe, created in and by the eternal Word, the “image of the invisible God”, is destined for and addressed to man, himself created in the “image of God” and called to a personal relationship with God.152 Our human understanding, which shares in the light of the divine intellect, can understand what God tells us by means of his creation, though not without great effort and only in a spirit of **humility and respect before the Creator and his work.153 Because creation comes forth from God’s goodness, it shares in that goodness - "And God saw that it was good. . . very good"154- for God willed creation as a gift addressed to man, an inheritance destined for and entrusted to him. On many occasions the Church has had to defend the goodness of creation, including that of the physical world.**155
F
fred_conty
Guest
Something to think over …
Intrinsic evil is the opposite of extrinsic evil: It is an act which is naturally (intrinsically) evil, because the ACT itself is absolutely contrary to reason, to nature, and to God.
Intrinsic evil can never be done, for it can never be good, because good can never be good and evil at the same time.
For example: A truth is true. What is true is good. A lie is an untrue or false statement made with the intent to deceive. The truth cannot be true (good) and false (evil) at the same time. A lie is never true but is always false, for it is intrisincally untrue and deceptive. Hence, a lie is an intrinsic evil.
Intrinsic evil is the opposite of extrinsic evil: It is an act which is naturally (intrinsically) evil, because the ACT itself is absolutely contrary to reason, to nature, and to God.
Intrinsic evil can never be done, for it can never be good, because good can never be good and evil at the same time.
For example: A truth is true. What is true is good. A lie is an untrue or false statement made with the intent to deceive. The truth cannot be true (good) and false (evil) at the same time. A lie is never true but is always false, for it is intrisincally untrue and deceptive. Hence, a lie is an intrinsic evil.
E
Ender
Guest
There are three aspects to any action that determine its moral quality: the act itself, the intent behind the act, and the circumstances. If any of them is immoral, the action is immoral. The circumstances rarely determine the morality of the act so it is the nature of the act and the intent that really concern us. Most acts are morally neutral, therefore it is the intent that generally determines whether the act is immoral, but some acts are always wrong in every circumstance, and the intent is irrelevant. Obviously these are the intrinsically evil acts.Evil is evil. To say specific acts are intrinsically evil doesn’t say anything more, IMHO, and the attempt to define specific acts as intrinsically evil only results in confounding attempts to explain why this is so since there are always exceptions.
A normally good act can become sinful if the intent is immoral, but an intrinsically evil act cannot become good regardless of the reasons that motivated it. There are never exceptions.
Ender
G
guanophore
Guest
Apparently they were not unfounded, and I was not the only one who had them.I want to reiterate this. I think that his comments towards Fran were below the belt and judgemental in a very offensive manner.
G
guanophore
Guest
Authentic faith, certainly. Catholic?My own take is that you are way out of line in your criticism of this poster.
While certainly a lot of the discussions here are going over my head, this Fran person strikes me as having an authentic Catholic faith.
P
pnewton
Guest
Yes Catholic! Just like it is Catholic that we avoid rash judgment by taking the most charitable interpretation of what others say and do. I will assume all here are familiar with the Catechism’s statement on this.Authentic faith, certainly. Catholic?
D
Darryl1958
Guest
That is what I said.Authentic faith, certainly. Catholic?
Other than that, it is a little unfair to talk about people who are no longer here to defend themselves.
A
anthrogirl
Guest
Sometimes we lose sight of the big picture, our mission in Christ, when we focus so much on following the rules. We can get so intertwined in them that they cut off our ability to do Christ’s work. The pope has said this countless of times. We see it with CRS. We see it with the religious working in the inner cities. We see it in our own homes. Sometimes love and compassion call us to break with doctrine. Not all the time. Not even most of the time. But sometimes, we have to break with doctrine in order to walk with Christ. Catholics are not stupid people and we know what actions are right, righteous and aligned with God. Doctrines help form the big picture and set the overall tones and rules. But whenever they become obstacles to the mission, we must choose to follow God.Is he saying Church doctrine must change to fit with the times? Is truth not immutable? What exactly does he mean that Doctrine is not a closed system? If we are free to question doctrines, why should we bind mens’ consciences to them?
A
anthrogirl
Guest
A lot of women take the pill for medical reasons. There are men who take meds or have procedures that end up affecting their fertility. Same thing. I have yet to hear a priest or bishop ask men and women to decline needed medical intervention because it might affect their ability to reproduce.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.
A
anthrogirl
Guest
We as a society, have always used drugs off label.In other words, we prescribe meds developed for one thing to treat something else. For example, I took meds for angina to treat my migraines. My sister used drugs designed to treat cancer for her Wegener’s disease. And we use the pill to treat things such as poly-cystic ovarian disease. My young niece has this and without intervention, she has increased risk for cardiac issues and diabetes. Maybe if we repackage a version of the pill under a different name and not call it a contraceptive, it would sit better with people. Just like some cardiac drugs that leave men with ED. Contraception will then just be a side effect, not a primary result.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.
A
anthrogirl
Guest
I know a lot of Catholics who fall into neither category. That’s what is so great about our Church. We are the universal church and we all are living in different situations. I can’t even begin to judge the circumstances of others. We all on our own unique spiritual journeys, guided by our faith, the church’s teachings, the Holy Spirit and our free will. Trying to categorize Catholics is as easy as herding cats!It is hard to tell if you were ever orthodox. It does not seem so from your posts. Orthodox Catholic faith adheres to the Teachings of the Church, including the authority of the Church.
Non-Orthodox Catholicism can be nominal Catholicism (people who are Catholic in name /culture only, and don’t practice the faith (lapsed), or “Cafeteria Catholics” which is what you seem to be, who pick and choose which parts of the faith they want to embrace and reject the others.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
I understand. The point I was making as part of a larger discussion is that the chemicals in oral contraceptives are not intrinsically evil.We as a society, have always used drugs off label.In other words, we prescribe meds developed for one thing to treat something else. For example, I took meds for angina to treat my migraines. My sister used drugs designed to treat cancer for her Wegener’s disease. And we use the pill to treat things such as poly-cystic ovarian disease. My young niece has this and without intervention, she has increased risk for cardiac issues and diabetes. Maybe if we repackage a version of the pill under a different name and not call it a contraceptive, it would sit better with people. Just like some cardiac drugs that leave men with ED. Contraception will then just be a side effect, not a primary result.
A
anthrogirl
Guest
I teach religious ed, 8th graders. We discussed how we all develop our faith in God differently. While we all have the same religious education, we all are of the same Church and we all follow the basic tenets of our faith, no two Catholics walk their paths in Christ the same way. Some of us will fall away from the Church in college, only to come back when we start having kids. Some of us will have moments where we will doubt the existence of God or the authority of the Church. Our job to seek and discern is a life time process and it will have its peaks and valleys. But I also told them never to doubt, even for a second, that God is by their side. Mother Teresa knew that God had not abandoned her even when she felt as if he had. Faith building is like muscle building. You need to rip apart some fibers in order to build better stronger ones. Some of the most faithful Catholics are the ones who have gone through difficult periods of discernment.The “rules” (church disciplines and canon law) are based in doctrine/dogma and are designed to lead the flock into the fulness of faith. Calling them “silly” or “crazy” just leads the reader to think you do not understand the nature and purpose of them, or you are taking a very shallow attitude toward your faith.
Have you ever considered how your words might affect Catholics and non-Catholics who are struggling to understand the direction the bishops have given to the Church? It seems like a very disdainful attitude toward the shepherds that God has appointed to be the guardians of our souls.
I am working on it. Some of your “words” throw me so far, it is possible that I am missing the gist.
This seems to be a rather adolescent attitude toward authority.
You can’t honestly expect to come to a Catholic forum, claim to be a catechist, create posts that indicate a disdain for our shepherds, and not expect to be confronted about it?!
There are plenty of people here on the threads that do not know their faith well. That is one reason people come here, to learn more. There are also non-Catholics that need accurate information about the church. Misrepresenting the teachings of the Church is a very serious problem here.
We should never disparage another Catholic because their path is different from the one we think is right for us. No human can judge another like that. That’s threading in God’s territory. What we can do is offer encouragement, kindness and compassion. While I agree that people in this forum can be a bit judgmental, I also find that many are loving and willing to help their fellow Catholics as we all struggle to walk our own paths in Christ.
A
anthrogirl
Guest
oops. sorry. my bad.I understand. The point I was making as part of a larger discussion is that the chemicals in oral contraceptives are not intrinsically evil.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.