Church teaching on birth control could be wrong, says English Catholic bishop

[cathgal]

It is condescending to claim youth cannot grasp salvation or are not open to what is true.

The bishop would say something like that would he. I mean, look at what kind of bishop those youth have. Is it any wonder ??

 

[Genesis315]

I find this statement highly doubtful. Source please

If the Pope goes along with it, how can it undermines the authority of the papacy?

There are some who believes it’s moral and some who believe it’s immoral. If the Pope choose one over the other, it would consider infallible, regardless of what everyone thinks.

But being the Pope and has the gift of infallibility given by the Holy Spirit, he chose the correct one because he knows what is right and not because he was influenced by conservatives. Where faith and morality are concerned, Popes are not influenced by outside force but by God.

As St. Francis de Sales said defending the infallibility of the Pope’s definitive judgment, the Holy Spirit leads him (and thus the Church he leads), but it doesn’t carry him. Consulting other bishops, theologians, etc. is all part of the process that ultimately leads him to his true definitive judgment. In Acts, St. Peter listens to the debate in the Council of Jerusalem, before rising up and silencing the debate with his decision. I am also reminded of when Jesus polled his disciples about the truth of who He was–they all got it wrong accept St. Peter, and he alone got it right not from his own merits, but because the Father revealed it to him.

Unfortunately today, there are a great many who do not respect the teaching and authority of the successors of St. Peter, yet claim to be a member of the flock entrusted to him.

 

[cathgal]

fix;
You’d have to ask a person who’s experienced in hearing confessions from the same people week after week, as this Bishop is. Jim

Experienced?

All I know is if a person not willing to repent in the confession, he shouldn’t be absolved.

If he’s willing, then he gets absolution. I doubt any person says things like ‘I will never commit such sins again, guaranteed!’

Was the bishop too naive to think that.

If that was the case, priests would have alot of time on their hands.

 

[cathgal]

As St. Francis de Sales said defending the infallibility of the Pope’s definitive judgment, the Holy Spirit leads him (and thus the Church he leads), but it doesn’t carry him. Consulting other bishops, theologians, etc. is all part of the process that ultimately leads him to his true definitive judgment. In Acts, St. Peter listens to the debate in the Council of Jerusalem, before rising up and silencing the debate with his decision. I am also reminded of when Jesus polled his disciples about the truth of who He was–they all got it wrong accept St. Peter, and he alone got it right not from his own merits, but because the Father revealed it to him.

I agree the Pope has advisors. But the decision is all his and not because he was influenced by them. The Holy Spirit leads him to see the truth. Pope Paul VI was in a very difficult situation at the time regarding human life. He did not have many who would agree with him and the truth was not very popular but he went against the tide. With anyone else, not being Pope, you know what would happen. Heck, even the Orthodox accepts contraception.

 

[cathgal]

I don’t see what the problem is with this Bishop. I think it’s ok to disagree with the Church on things not clearly stated in the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible does it say you can’t use methods of contraception ( obviously abc doesnt exist but it doesnt condemn the pull out method etc.) Now, I know the story of Onan supports the Church’s teaching, and I respect that. But I don’t think there’s a direct relation. I can see maturbation being a sin but not loving sex between husband and wife with contraception. I mean, that may be the right interpreation, but but it also might not be. I just don’t see how people can be sure. It’s one thing for a Bishop to disagree with an obvious Biblical teaching - saying adultery is fine or whatever - that’s wrong. But think this is up for debate.

Of course you dont’ see. You’re an atheist are you not. :doh2:

You shouldn’t be preaching your liberal ideas in a Catholic forum:tsktsk:
If you want to learn the whys and the hows of Catholicism, we would support that.

 

[cathgal]

There is debate as to whether Humanae Vitae is infallible teaching AND whether humanae Vitae applies to unmarried people.

Says who ??

You mean anyone else other than the magisterium? They don’t count. Case closed.

 

[cathgal]

Spot on Gen.

And, what’s more, the question about whether HV applies to unmarried people is somewhat immaterial in the sense that although artificial contraception might not be intrinsically evil for unmarried people,

If you read on contraception enough, you’d learn that the pill will even abort the tiny humans. Do you think this action might be intrinsically evil ?

moral theology would still invalidate its general use even among unmarried people, because of the evil effects of society and individuals.

Did you forget to include the tiny humans?

 

[fix]

Experienced?

All I know is if a person not willing to repent in the confession, he shouldn’t be absolved.

If he’s willing, then he gets absolution. I doubt any person says things like ‘I will never commit such sins again, guaranteed!’

Was the bishop too naive to think that.

If that was the case, priests would have alot of time on their hands.

Right. A sincere confession is a good one. We recieve grace. What I cannot figure out from the quote is why would frequent confession would be bad simply because people confess the same sin. Would infrequent confession solve the problem?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Pope Paul VI was going to go along with the commission’s report, but more conservatives in the Vatican, warned him, that if he did so, it would undermine the authority of the Papacy. He rejected it, and of course, issued Humanae Vitae.

Do you have any proof of this? Let’s see your source please. Or did just assume it?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

cathgal,

Oops! You’re shooting at your own troops! (i.e. You seem to think I disagree with the Church’s teaching on contraception).

If you read on contraception enough, you’d learn that the pill will even abort the tiny humans. Do you think this action might be intrinsically evil ?

Direct abortion is always intrinsically evil.

Did you forget to include the tiny humans?

No, of course not. I was speaking of non-abortifacient contraception.

Please re-read my post.
VC

 

[cathgal]

cathgal,

Oops! You’re shooting at your own troops! (i.e. You seem to think I disagree with the Church’s teaching on contraception).

'…although artificial contraception might not be intrinsically evil ’

Whatever do you mean??

Direct abortion is always intrinsically evil.

I know that. I was mimicking you.

No, of course not. I was speaking of non-abortifacient contraception.

You did ??

How?

 

[cathgal]

Right. A sincere confession is a good one. We recieve grace. What I cannot figure out from the quote is why would frequent confession would be bad simply because people confess the same sin. Would infrequent confession solve the problem?

The bishop probably doesn’t practice frequent confession. You can see lack of grace is working on him

 

[Verbum_Caro]

cathgal,

It was brought up earlier in the thread that there was a debate as to whether or not HV applied to married people. Basically the argument comes from the fact the HV seems to discuss the evil of contraception within the conjugal union. The question has been brought up whether or not HV said anything directly about contraception outside of marriage. HV certainly said that artifical contraception within marriage is intrinsically evil.

What I was pointing out was that *although *artificial contraception outside of marriage may or may not be intrinsically evil (the Church, to my knowledge, has not said) that fact is somewhat immaterial because moral theology would prohibit artificial contraception outside of marriage even if it was not intrinsically evil, because the effects of artificial contraception outside of marriage are evil. (An intrinsic evil is evil regardless of the effects).

What do you think? Does that help at all?
VC

 

[estesbob]

cathgal,

It was brought up earlier in the thread that there was a debate as to whether or not HV applied to married people. Basically the argument comes from the fact the HV seems to discuss the evil of contraception within the conjugal union. The question has been brought up whether or not HV said anything directly about contraception outside of marriage. HV certainly said that artifical contraception within marriage is intrinsically evil.

What I was pointing out was that *although *artificial contraception outside of marriage may or may not be intrinsically evil (the Church, to my knowledge, has not said) that fact is somewhat immaterial because moral theology would prohibit artificial contraception outside of marriage even if it was not intrinsically evil, because the effects of artificial contraception outside of marriage are evil. (An intrinsic evil is evil regardless of the effects).

What do you think? Does that help at all?
VC

I would agree that is true in the case as a contraceptive that can also be abortificant but I’m not so sure that that would apply a barrier methods of contraception. What is the intrinsic evil of using a condom or spermicide outside of marriage?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

'…although artificial contraception might not be intrinsically evil ’

Whatever do you mean??

I mean what I said, but not what you *quoted me as saying. *You left out the rest:

me:

although artificial contraception might not be intrinsically evil for unmarried people, moral theology would still invalidate its general use even among unmarried people, because of the evil effects of society and individuals.

Careful with the quote button

You did ?? How?

Yes, because using something that would cause an abortion kicks the moral analysis of contraception in the general sense (i.e. all types of contraception – prophylactics, interruptus, etc.) to a more specific case involving the actual destruction of human life. Contraception involves intent and action against conception. The problem of the abortive effect of some contraceptive pills is another issue involving a different moral analysis since it involves attacking human life after conception, and not preventing conception from taking place.

Basically. . .pssst, I’m on your side.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I would agree that is true in the case as a contraceptive that can also be abortificant but I’m not so sure that that would apply a barrier methods of contraception. What is the intrinsic evil of using a condom or spermicide outside of marriage?

estesbob,

I’'m not sure I follow you exactly. I don’t think I said that a non-abortive contraception outside of marriage is intrinsically evil. Nor have I said that it is not. Basically, to my knowledge, I don’t think the Church has said either way (intrinsic evil) mind you.

But there are strong arguments that the general use of non-abortive artificial contraception outside of marriage is still evil and generally impermissible because of the evil effects it causes. For instance, undermining the institution of marriage.

What do you think?
VC

 

[estesbob]

estesbob,

I’'m not sure I follow you exactly. I don’t think I said that a non-abortive contraception outside of marriage is intrinsically evil. Nor have I said that it is not. Basically, to my knowledge, I don’t think the Church has said either way (intrinsic evil) mind you.

But there are strong arguments that the general use of non-abortive artificial contraception outside of marriage is still evil and generally impermissible because of the evil effects it causes. For instance, undermining the institution of marriage.

What do you think?
VC

I agree that the sexual acts outside of marriage undermines the institution of marriage and I also believe that premarital and extramarital sex are harmful to individuals who engage in it and in most cases all those around them, however this harm is caused by the act, the contraception is secondary this. The harm caused by premarital and extramarital sex would be the same whether they use contraception are not. I really don’t see where Humanw Vitae covers the sex that outside of marriage

 

[siamesecat]

Of course you dont’ see. You’re an atheist are you not. :doh2:

You shouldn’t be preaching your liberal ideas in a Catholic forum:tsktsk:
If you want to learn the whys and the hows of Catholicism, we would support that.

I’m not preaching liberal ideas, and I’ve been here for years learning the whys and hows. I respect your opinions, and I’m not saying I believe birth control is totally okay - I’m just saying that it’s not explicitly clear whether or not it is allowed. Using the bible as the basis, that is. There are some teachings that by reading the Bible no one can deny, but I can see why people may interpret this one differently, is all. That’s not liberal, that’s objective.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I agree that the sexual acts outside of marriage undermines the institution of marriage and I also believe that premarital and extramarital sex are harmful to individuals who engage in it and in most cases all those around them, however this harm is caused by the act, the contraception is secondary this. The harm caused by premarital and extramarital sex would be the same whether they use contraception are not. I really don’t see where Humanw Vitae covers the sex that outside of marriage

estesbob,

Apologies if I’ve miscommunicated some how. I’ve tried to say in my prior posts that HV seems to address only the intrinsic evil of artificial contraception within marriage. So I am at a bit of a loss in regard to this portion of your post:

estesbob:

I really don’t see where Humanw Vitae covers the sex that outside of marriage

because I tend to agree with you. Which is why I said a)that HV definitely says that contraception within marriage is an intrinsic evil and also said b)that I’m not sure the Church has ever said whether contraception outside of marriage is an intrinsic evil.

The point is, that the general use contraception outside of marriage would still be impermissible because of the evil effects (regardless of whether or not it is in fact intrinsically evil).

estesbob:

however this harm is caused by the act, the contraception is secondary this

Except that contraception facilitates pre-marital sex. That would be one of the evil effects of contraception outside of marriage, and one of the reasons why contraception outside of marriage would still be impermissible regardless whether it is an intrinsic evil or not.

Please let me know what you think, and if I can clarify my thoughts more.

VC

 

[cathgal]

cathgal,

It was brought up earlier in the thread that there was a debate as to whether or not HV applied to married people. Basically the argument comes from the fact the HV seems to discuss the evil of contraception within the conjugal union. The question has been brought up whether or not HV said anything directly about contraception outside of marriage. HV certainly said that artifical contraception within marriage is intrinsically evil.

and what does HV mean again?

In the first place, sexual act is not allowed outside of marriage so asking if contracepition applies to it or not is like asking if an egg exists before a chicken.

What I was pointing out was that *although *artificial contraception outside of marriage may or may not be intrinsically evil (the Church, to my knowledge, has not said)

Based on the comment above, does the Church need to ?

that fact is somewhat immaterial because moral theology would prohibit artificial contraception outside of marriage even if it was not intrinsically evil, because the effects of artificial contraception outside of marriage are evil. (An intrinsic evil is evil regardless of the effects).

What do you think? Does that help at all?
VC

But contraception is evil. period. There is no but, if or may and I don’t care what moral theology says.

You are causing confusion is the way I see it.