C
cathgal
Guest
Regarding the evil of contraception, does it matter if I left out married or unmarried?I mean what I said, but not what you *quoted me as saying. *You left out the rest:
Careful with the quote button
Church teaching on birth control could be wrong, says English Catholic bishop
- Status
C
cathgal
Guest
C
cathgal
Guest
Youâve been here for years and you never learn that the Church exists before the Bible or that the Church gave the world the Bible ??
tsk tskâŚ
R
RobertLGarrett
Guest
My guess is that Humanae Vitae didnât address contraception outside of marriage, because the Church takes it as a given that intercourse outside of marriage is a grave sin. If you are avoiding grave sin, contraception wouldnât even be a question. If you are committing the mortal sin of fornication or adultery, then why would you even bother yourself with the question of the gravity of contraception?
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
- Asked if frequent confession is a a good idea, he replies: âNo, because my own experience when we had Confession every day at St Chadâs Cathedral in Birmingham was that regular penitents came back with exactly the same words week after week. So there you would say, actually, there is no conversion taking place.â
R
RobertLGarrett
Guest
This is what I was wondering. I was struggling with a mortal sin at one point and confessed twice in three days. When I confessed the second time, I said something along the lines that âI know it is ridiculous for me to have to confess again this soonâŚâ, but the priest said it is never ridiculous! The fact that someone feels sorry for their sin and is confessing is a sign of contrition. If they donât confess, it is because they donât feel sorry and/or donât believe they have sinned. Certainly, there can be cases of scrupulosity, but that doesnât seem to be what the Bishop is saying.Well at least they were praying about thein sins and examining their conscience and assking forgiveness. Does he prefer that now people just donât believe in sin at all?
- Asked if frequent confession is a a good idea, he replies: âNo, because my own experience when we had Confession every day at St Chadâs Cathedral in Birmingham was that regular penitents came back with exactly the same words week after week. So there you would say, actually, there is no conversion taking place.â
E
estesbob
Guest
It looks like we are in agreement. To be honest I have problems with the churchâs teachings against barrier methods of contraception even in marriage but I accept it because it is the clear teaching of the Church. But as far as Humane Vitae my reading of it seems to indicate it is addressed only to married couples.
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
Hi cathgal,
I was defending the Churchâs teaching on contraception. Someone made the argument that HV was not addressed to unmarried couples, implicity trying to say that contraception can be lawfully used by unmarried couples.
I pointed out that even if HV wasnât addressed to unmarried couples, contraception would still be impermissible and an evil.
Understand?
But, it seems to me that if we want to proclaim that HV says that contraception outside of marriage is an intrinsic evil, we might go farther than the Church herself went. If HV is an infallible pronouncement (as I believe) then what it says is really really important,* and* what it doesnât say is equally so. If, in fact, the Holy Father limited his pronouncement on the intrinsic evil of contraception to married couples, I think it is important not to say that he also infallibly stated that contraception is intrinsically evil for unmarried couples.
But please note that the above doesnât mean,necessarily, that contraception outside of marriage isnât an intrinsic evil. It just means that HV didnât make a pronouncement on it (neither did *Casti Connubii for that matter).
*I think it might be important. For instance â it might need some thought on our parts as to why contraception outside of marriage is an intrinsic evil? HV mentions that artificial contraception breaks âthe inseparable connection, established by Godâ, between the unitive and procreative significance that is âinherent to the marriage actâ as the reason that contraception is intrinsically evil. Are we prepared to say that **inherent **in every instance of extra-marital sexual intercourse there is unitive and procreative significance?
VC
Humanae Vitae.
Whoâs askinâ that?
Thatâs fine. But look, I sincerely hope that you wonât include me in the broad paint stroke as one of the folks trying to undermine the Churchâs teaching on contraception.
I was defending the Churchâs teaching on contraception. Someone made the argument that HV was not addressed to unmarried couples, implicity trying to say that contraception can be lawfully used by unmarried couples.
I pointed out that even if HV wasnât addressed to unmarried couples, contraception would still be impermissible and an evil.
Understand?
But, it seems to me that if we want to proclaim that HV says that contraception outside of marriage is an intrinsic evil, we might go farther than the Church herself went. If HV is an infallible pronouncement (as I believe) then what it says is really really important,* and* what it doesnât say is equally so. If, in fact, the Holy Father limited his pronouncement on the intrinsic evil of contraception to married couples, I think it is important not to say that he also infallibly stated that contraception is intrinsically evil for unmarried couples.
But please note that the above doesnât mean,necessarily, that contraception outside of marriage isnât an intrinsic evil. It just means that HV didnât make a pronouncement on it (neither did *Casti Connubii for that matter).
*I think it might be important. For instance â it might need some thought on our parts as to why contraception outside of marriage is an intrinsic evil? HV mentions that artificial contraception breaks âthe inseparable connection, established by Godâ, between the unitive and procreative significance that is âinherent to the marriage actâ as the reason that contraception is intrinsically evil. Are we prepared to say that **inherent **in every instance of extra-marital sexual intercourse there is unitive and procreative significance?
VC
E
estesbob
Guest
They would bother with contraception to protect themselves from a veneral diseases and/or keep their partner from getting pregnanl. Neither of these reasons would be licit in a marriage but the circumstances of premarital or extramarital sex is quite different and I do not believe it was addressed in Humanae VitaMy guess is that Humanae Vitae didnât address contraception outside of marriage, because the Church takes it as a given that intercourse outside of marriage is a grave sin. If you are avoiding grave sin, contraception wouldnât even be a question. If you are committing the mortal sin of fornication or adultery, then why would you even bother yourself with the question of the gravity of contraception?
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
Hi estesbob,
VC
Iâm glad you accept it, even in spite of difficulty understanding it All of us are called to that.
Yes, possibly.
Maybe on some things, but perhaps not on all. I think that contraception outside of marriage is also sinful (in addition to the sin of sex outside of marriage). It might also be the case that contraception outside of marriage is intrinsically evil.
VC
R
RobertLGarrett
Guest
Bob,
I didnât ask why they would bother with contraception. That is pretty obvious.
What I asked is why they would concern themselves about the sinfulness of contraception when they could care less about the sinfulness of fornication/adultery? Itâs sort of like a gangbanger saying, âwell I shot the guy for no reason, but I wasnât about to pick his pocketsâŚthat would be stealing.â
Pax,
Robert
E
estesbob
Guest
If it is it would not be because of the reasons laid out in HV. Should we take any meaning from the fact that Pope Paul VI deliberately excluded non-married couples from his discussion?
R
RobertLGarrett
Guest
That seems like it is a stretchâŚas I posted, he may have just taken it for granted. Since the Church clearly teaches against sex outside of marriage, it seems superfluous to say âoh by the wayâŚif you are having sex outside of marriage, this goes for you too.â âŚnot that a Pope would phrase it that way.
E
estesbob
Guest
I know they wouldnât bother themselves with whether it was sinful or not.B ut I wonder if in the case of extramarital our premarital sexsometimes of contraception, like condoms, might actually be acceptable to the churchas lessening the evil?Bob,
I didnât ask why they would bother with contraception. That is pretty obvious.
What I asked is why they would concern themselves about the sinfulness of contraception when they could care less about the sinfulness of fornication/adultery? Itâs sort of like a gangbanger saying, âwell I shot the guy for no reason, but I wasnât about to pick his pocketsâŚthat would be stealing.â
Pax,
Robert
I can think of a couple instances where this may very well be the case, Suppose a woman is being raped and she asked her rapist to use a condom? Has she sinned?
IOr suppose single women in Rwnda ,where there was wide- spread rape ,were to use contraception. Would that be a sin?
I guess that Iâm totally speculating here because it really isnt addressed in HV.
!
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
Yes, in this context it did, because when you quoted me you seemed to think that I said that âartificial contraception might not be intrinsically evilâ (which wasnât my point at all) but I had added the qualifier âfor unmarried peopleâ. HV already established that artificial contraception is intrinsically evil for married people. I would never state the opposite.
Once again, here is how the conversation on this thread went:
- Bishop says âHV might be wrongâ
- EstesBob points out that there is a debate whether or not HV is infallible (âpart Aâ) and whether or not it applies to unmarried people (âpart Bâ).
- Jim says that the Bishop is just on one side of the debate. (presumably, by inference, both parts A and B of the debate)
- Gen15 points out that whether or not HV is infallible it is still the constant teaching of the Church (i.e. he addresses part A)
- I add to and bolster Gen15âs post by saying that the whole âHV doesnât apply to married peopleâ debate also doesnât excuse the Bishop, because contraception is still wrong for unmarried people, even if HV wasnât making an official pronouncement on unmarried people. (i.e. I address part B)
This was an argument against the inference from Jim that the Bishop had a legitimate point of view that the Church âcould be wrongâ on the issue of contraception because HV didnât apply to married people.
I think if you re-read the first few posts in this thread up to my second post, in context with what Gen15 said right before it, youâll see what I was getting at.
VC
J
JReducation
Guest
Cardinal Levada, who succeeded Cardinal Ratzinger to the Congregation on the Faith has also said the Humanae Vitae is not infallible. He wrote a very long dissertation for his Sacred Theology Doctorate on this topic.
"The human process of formulating moral norms is marked by an essential dependence upon the data of human experience⌠The variabilities which marked the human process of its discovery and formulation made such particular applications inherently unsuited to be considered for infallible definition⌠For such formulations must remain essentially open to modification and reformulation based upon moral values as they are perceived in relation to the data and the experience which mark manâs understanding of himself⌠Even though there is nothing to prevent a council or a pope from extending [infallibility] to questions of the natural moral law from the point of view of their authority to do so, nevertheless the âprudentialâ certitude which characterizes the non-scriptural norms of the natural law argues against such an extensionâŚ" (Doctoral Dissertation 1970)
He goes on to state that it must be obeyed. But he clarifies that John Paul II credited as infallible teaching what Humanae Vitae says about abortion.
What the English bishop is saying about Humanae Vitae is the same thing as the Prefect for the Congregation on the Faith. It is not infallible dogma. He does not encourage dissent. I donât see that coming through in the interview, unless there is something missing from the interview.
JR
"The human process of formulating moral norms is marked by an essential dependence upon the data of human experience⌠The variabilities which marked the human process of its discovery and formulation made such particular applications inherently unsuited to be considered for infallible definition⌠For such formulations must remain essentially open to modification and reformulation based upon moral values as they are perceived in relation to the data and the experience which mark manâs understanding of himself⌠Even though there is nothing to prevent a council or a pope from extending [infallibility] to questions of the natural moral law from the point of view of their authority to do so, nevertheless the âprudentialâ certitude which characterizes the non-scriptural norms of the natural law argues against such an extensionâŚ" (Doctoral Dissertation 1970)
He goes on to state that it must be obeyed. But he clarifies that John Paul II credited as infallible teaching what Humanae Vitae says about abortion.
What the English bishop is saying about Humanae Vitae is the same thing as the Prefect for the Congregation on the Faith. It is not infallible dogma. He does not encourage dissent. I donât see that coming through in the interview, unless there is something missing from the interview.
JR
G
grampben
Guest
This is absolute nonsense. What gives you the right to insult another people?AhhâŚthere go the English thinking againâŚ
Coming from the country that founded its own religion on the sexual desires of their king - is it really surprising?
The Church of England, originally founded by a corrupt King, was made what it is by Thomas Cranmer and other reformers. Read the 39 Articles and the BCP then give us a more charitable response.
Would you like it if I insulted your people?
Also you have no historical knowledge of this event seemingly, because it wasnât âsexual desiresâ of Henry VIII that made him want to divorce Catherine of Aragon, it was because he wanted a son and he thought she couldnât give him one.
All in all I am offended by your post.
E
Eucharisted
Guest
LAWL Letâs pray for the Bishops.
G
grampben
Guest
Oh yes, because youâre so full of grace and charity on this thread.The bishop probably doesnât practice frequent confession. You can see lack of grace is working on him
- Status