church authority

[mommamaree]

I do not think every woman’s egg or ever man’s sperm has a right to life. So I see no reason to say that having sex with a condom is any morally worse than abstaining from sex or having a wet dream.

Sorry, just one more thing to add. You are right about eggs and sperms not having a right to life. This is not an issue in the Catholic Church, so I hope no one has been informing you otherwise. Nocturnal emissions are completely normal and healthy, and not the least bit immoral. And thousands of eggs are lost in a woman’s lifetime, while only a few end up becoming fertilized. Again, no problem there. The issue at hand is not the spilling of seed or loss of eggs, but rather how we consciously choose to act, and condom use does alter the experience and significance of the marital act in the way I discussed above.

 

[Onegin]

I’d like to respond to your very good post here just to mention that NFP, as in Natural Family Planning, is merely a way of monitoring a woman’s fertility, so that the husband and wife can make informed decisions regarding their sexual behavior and having children. NFP can just as easily be used to help a woman become pregnant, and can help reveal fertility issues or health problems. It can help a couple to space out their children so that the woman is at full strength and the children they already have will have passed from infancy to older toddlerhood. I just mention this because your post very adequately describes what I have heard about regarding a ‘contraceptive mentality’ but NFP can be used as a holistic method for truly planning one’s family, not just preventing pregnancy. I don’t want that benefit of NFP to get lost in this discussion, because it is so important.

Thanks!

I think NFP is a very difficult topic because, as humans the immediate weakness is for us to interpret “holistic family planning” away from being synonymous with “having as many children as God wills for us” to “having as many children as we feel to be convenient.” I’m only choosing to speak about the use of NFP for reasons of avoiding children - I see no moral issue in using it as an aid to grow one’s family.

As one poster on another forum a long time ago so concisely put it, society today considers family planning along the following lines:

Income: fixed
Children: variable

when the real equation should read:

Children: fixed
Income: variable

Sadly, Catholics have also fallen into this trap. As soon as income shifts from “fixed” to “variable” they automatically jump to NFP. Incomes come and go. Jobs come and go. God has already fixed the number of children that He wills each family to bring into this world - the families just need to come 'round and accept this and welcome them!

Consider:

“Cardinal Ottaviani spoke on the following day. ‘I am not pleased,’ he said, ‘with the statement in the text that married couples may determine the number of children they are to have. Never has this been heard of in the Church.’ He was the eleventh son in a family of twelve children, he said. ‘My father was a laborer, and the fear of having many children never entered my parents’ minds, because they trusted in providence.’”

(Fr. Ralph M. Wiltgen, S.V.D., The Rhine flows into the Tiber- A History of Vatican II. Tan Books, 1985, p. 269.)

 

[fhkjds]

Thanks for your reply. I enjoyed reading it, and here are the thoughts that come to mind.

-----“the husband is withholding the seminal fluid released during orgasm (obviously, right? ), and second, it removes the unitive aspect in a subtle but serious way. The biblical teaching of ‘two shall become one flesh’ cannot occur if the most intimate organs involved are actually prevented from coming into contact.”------

But he’s also withholding the seminal fluid if the couple says “let’s not have sex while we can’t afford a child,” and the couple, if they do that, will not share sexual intimacy. I agree that having sex without protection when the woman is fertile, fully hoping for a baby, is the highest and most loving form of sex. But that doesn’t mean anything less than that is wrong. There is no unitive or procreative aspect of sex if the couple says “let’s not have sex while we are struggling financially,” and the church is fine with saying that. But if they have sex with a condom at least they are engaging in some form of sexual intimacy, with the possibility of of conception, even if slim.

-----“using a condom is like saying “I want you, but I do not want your most intimate organ to touch my most intimate organ, because I feel afraid of having a child.””--------

But abstaining is like saying “I want you, but I’m afraid of having a child so I’m not getting my intimate organ anywhere near yours at all.” But the church is still okay with abstaining.

"But do we really want to be saying to God “If You want us to have a child, then we insist it must be as a result of a mistake or accident”

I look at it more like saying, “God, we don’t feel ready to give our firstborn the best life he or she could have right now, so we’re trying to be responsible. But whatever happens, we know you will guide us.”

I think a passionate kiss is very loving, but that doesn’t mean that a casual peck is a sin. Likewise I think unprotected sex with hope of conception is the highest form of sex, but trying to be sexually intimate while you feel it’s not a good time to have a child is still loving even if not the highest form.

Thanks very much for your thoughts, I understand where you are coming from a little better now, I think.

 

[Sherry_G]

I think it’s dangerous, though, to just say “I don’t get it but the church must be right.” The church has done bad things in history (because it is run by humans) and I think for the laity at that time to say “the church must be right” would have been wrong-headed.

What if it’s not a matter of “I don’t understand why the church teaches that,” but “I have explored fully why the church teaches that, and I disagree” ?

Both positions are uncomfortable. It’s uncomfortable for me to say “I’m sure I’ll come to understand this teaching even though the reasons seem flat wrong to me,” but it’s also uncomfortable to disagree with the church. They are both uncomfortable but there’s only one I can assert honestly.

The Church has not done bad things! Human beings who join the church sometimes do bad things, though. Please discern the difference. The church does not teach anything evil and there is no evidence to say the Church has done bad things. Perhaps you just mis-spoke?

 

[fhkjds]

People in the church are part of the church. My point is that mistakes can be made in the name of God.

 

[mommamaree]

Thanks for your reply. I enjoyed reading it, and here are the thoughts that come to mind.

-----“the husband is withholding the seminal fluid released during orgasm (obviously, right? ), and second, it removes the unitive aspect in a subtle but serious way. The biblical teaching of ‘two shall become one flesh’ cannot occur if the most intimate organs involved are actually prevented from coming into contact.”------

But he’s also withholding the seminal fluid if the couple says “let’s not have sex while we can’t afford a child,” and the couple, if they do that, will not share sexual intimacy. I agree that having sex without protection when the woman is fertile, fully hoping for a baby, is the highest and most loving form of sex. But that doesn’t mean anything less than that is wrong. There is no unitive or procreative aspect of sex if the couple says “let’s not have sex while we are struggling financially,” and the church is fine with saying that. But if they have sex with a condom at least they are engaging in some form of sexual intimacy, with the possibility of of conception, even if slim.

-----“using a condom is like saying “I want you, but I do not want your most intimate organ to touch my most intimate organ, because I feel afraid of having a child.””--------

But abstaining is like saying “I want you, but I’m afraid of having a child so I’m not getting my intimate organ anywhere near yours at all.” But the church is still okay with abstaining.

"But do we really want to be saying to God “If You want us to have a child, then we insist it must be as a result of a mistake or accident”

I look at it more like saying, “God, we don’t feel ready to give our firstborn the best life he or she could have right now, so we’re trying to be responsible. But whatever happens, we know you will guide us.”

I think a passionate kiss is very loving, but that doesn’t mean that a casual peck is a sin. Likewise I think unprotected sex with hope of conception is the highest form of sex, but trying to be sexually intimate while you feel it’s not a good time to have a child is still loving even if not the highest form.

Thanks very much for your thoughts, I understand where you are coming from a little better now, I think.

Yes, I think that we are understanding each other better now, even if we are disagreeing. If you don’t mind, I’d like to take some time to think about your remarks here and see if I have anything else that would be worthwhile to contribute to the conversation. Besides, you still have that interesting visit with your priest-friend to look forward to! If I think of any other worthy points, I will add them later. But I will say that your perspective sounds very much like that of my Methodist aunt who is, along with her husband, an ordained minister. She and I had an interesting but short discussion on sexual expression within marriage and its proper context and purpose (this was as I was coming to the Catholic faith), and she expressed some of the very same concerns and sentiments that you expressed here. So people with strong faith and a call to lead in ministry in the Protestant faith can have objections to this particular Catholic teaching; it is not an easy topic! She and I disagreed then, as you and I do now, but I will never forget that exchange with her, because it reveals how complex this topic can be.

 

[Joseph651]

What I would tell my granddaughter who faced these concerns in her life.
Let you not forget, Christ died on the Cross for our sins. God made Adam and Eve leave his garden because of sin. Christ died for our sins. Do we try to live a perfect life, yes, do we achieve that perfect life, no. The poster who said that God already knows what children will be born to a family is correct. So, the question that may be asked, are you working against God, or for God? Statements have been made by past Popes and Bishops and Priest, an Deacons. Are they right with their statements, no, are some right, yes, are you right with your concerns yes, are you wrong, yes. Just believe that Jesus will be with you always, or as long as you want him in your life. Remember also that Jesus gave Peter the responsibility of building his church. There is only one true Church which follows all the teachings of Jesus Christ. Is our Church perfect, no, does our Church try to be perfect, yes, we are sinners, we have been forgiven of our sins through Jesus Christ, Praise be to God in all his Glory.

You are in my Prayers

 

[Godblessed]

I am not a theologian but when I have taken a great deal of time in reading what the church teaches and what protestant denominations teach regarding many tenants of the christian faith. I am guided by the teachings of the church because Christ established a church, a visible church. If Peter wasn’t the rock, then what was Jesus talking about giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Most churches ignore history and take the bible for their guide. The bible is God’s infallible word but it didn’t just fall out of the sky. The church existed before the bible and it is from the church that the bible came. Where is the church that Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against, it must still be here. What church can trace its origins back to the times of the apostles. Would God allow his holy word to come from a corrupt pagan church? Did God want us to learn his religion from the bible or did our Saviour Jesus Christ establish a church to guide us in the fullness of truth? Christ referred to his church as The Bride, not brides, many may share on faith in Christ Jesus and one baptism but there is only one true church and if it doesn’t matter what church you go to, why are there so many different churches, and different doctrines. There can only be one truth. Christ said the Holy Spirit would guide us in the fullness of truth. There are many things hard to understand about the church but I can’t be selective, this isn’t a cafeteria. ie look at the Eucharist. Even some of Jesus’ own disciples couldn’t really comprehend it and what did they do, they walked with him no more. If the Catholic church isn’t the true church, I would ask as St Peter did, “to whom shall we go.”

Godblessed

 

[fhkjds]

Joseph – thanks very much for that thoughtful comment. It helps to remember that as I struggle to understand that God will be with me.

 

[fhkjds]

I am not a theologian but when I have taken a great deal of time in reading what the church teaches and what protestant denominations teach regarding many tenants of the christian faith. I am guided by the teachings of the church because Christ established a church, a visible church. If Peter wasn’t the rock, then what was Jesus talking about giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Most churches ignore history and take the bible for their guide. The bible is God’s infallible word but it didn’t just fall out of the sky. The church existed before the bible and it is from the church that the bible came. Where is the church that Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against, it must still be here. What church can trace its origins back to the times of the apostles. Would God allow his holy word to come from a corrupt pagan church? Did God want us to learn his religion from the bible or did our Saviour Jesus Christ establish a church to guide us in the fullness of truth? Christ referred to his church as The Bride, not brides, many may share on faith in Christ Jesus and one baptism but there is only one true church and if it doesn’t matter what church you go to, why are there so many different churches, and different doctrines. There can only be one truth. Christ said the Holy Spirit would guide us in the fullness of truth. There are many things hard to understand about the church but I can’t be selective, this isn’t a cafeteria. ie look at the Eucharist. Even some of Jesus’ own disciples couldn’t really comprehend it and what did they do, they walked with him no more. If the Catholic church isn’t the true church, I would ask as St Peter did, “to whom shall we go.”

Godblessed

Godblessed— As I said before on the thread I’m not treating it capriciously like a cafeteria, I’m thinking hard about it as a sincere seeker after truth, and I believe that a desire for truth is a desire for God.

Even if I disagree with the church on something that does NOT mean that I think the gates of hell have prevailed against the church.

Yes, some people walked away from the eucharist, but they were just disgusted and walked away. That’s not my reaction. I’m doing what they should have done, which is to seek greater understanding and clarification even if a teaching is challenging.

If the pope spoke ex cathedra and said that a triangle had 4 sides, I’d have a crisis of faith. (I’m not saying anything like that has happened). But many Catholics wouldn’t have a crisis of faith in that situation, and I think that’s too bad because God gave us brains and we should seek truth so we can seek God.