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

[JReducation]

Regarding Humanae Vitae, his answer was terrible. It doesn’t matter if Cardinal Levada has said the same thing as well. A teaching doesn’t need to be infallible for it be to followed and yet he inserts an excuse for not obeying it by saying it may not be correct. Are you not aware of how the clergy in the USA and Canada “gave a pass” to couples when Humanae Vitae was issued?

I don’t believe that sharing one’s question whether something is correct or needs more work is a pass to disobey it. The facts are very clear. The Ordinary Magisterium has spoken on this issue and until further notice, this is what we have to follow.

JR

 

[JReducation]

Well you have quite a talent for presenting what people say in the best possible light. I suppose that’s a good talent to have though, especially on Christmas Have a Merry Christmas.

Saint Francis always said that Perfect Joy could only be found when we attempt to understand the good in the other.

I hope that you’re having a Happy and Holy Christmas.

JR

 

[chevalier]

As to the divorce, a person who is divorced is not in state of sin if he or she has not entered into a second marriage. That is the law of the Church. The sin is adultery, not divorce. Some situations people have to get a divorce for legal reasons or for protection of themselves or their family.

JR

Cutting a marriage because it’s no longer satisfying but without an intention to remarry is abandonment. When the Church says that what God put together man should not put asunder, this does not mean that everything is fine as long as one doesn’t remarry. This said, a civil divorce may sometimes be necessary, but I think in many cases it seems to be a final act of interrupting marital cohabitation for good, in which case it is not necessary and gives rise to wrong ideas, such as that a sacramental marriage ends, which it cannot, as we all know.

Also, some actions are in grey zones. I’ll use masturbation as an example. The old wording was that it was mortally sinful. The wording in the CCC is that it is a disordered act. It stands to reason that a disordered act can be a mortal sin, but it can also be disordered because of the individual’s lack of psychological maturity, regardless of his or her age. Two confessors or two spiritual directors may arrive at two conclusions and both may have some degree of validity.

Masturbation is grave matter, but many masturbators suffer from defects of reason or will. Where’s room for a difference of opinion here - other than merely disagreeing whether it was already a mortal sin or not yet on the account of the actor’s knowledge and consent? As you say later in your post, both can be looking at culpability, however I’m not sure there’s much that can be said about “angles”.

It’s not a matter of one priest is right and another is wrong. Each is probably looking from a different perspective. He calls it from his point of view.

One priest is right and the other is wrong. They cannot be right at the same time if their opinions contradict each other. Further, one act is either mortally sinful or not, but not both at the same time. We might not know which priest is right and which wrong, but objectively one of them is right and the other is wrong.

In the case of the divorced person, there are situations in which the confessor has sufficient reason to believe that the first marriage is invalid, but there is difficulty proving it. The confessor has to make a judgment call. The Church allows a confessor to make a judgment call based on what he knows about the case.

That only makes the difference between adultery and fornication. Say, the person was forced at gun point, but all witnesses lie and the tribunal is misled, issuing a decree for validity. The person then has sex with a third party. I don’t think anyone would call it adultery with the understanding that the forced party was really forced. However, fornication remains since that person is not married to the third party. That person is in a horrible situation, but still cannot just have a civil marriage and have sex with the third party.

However, the confessor who knows his penitent well should be able to tell if the person needs such a decree.

Any person who has attempted marriage needs a decree. The marriage possesses the favour of the law. That person will not get a sacramental marriage. And if that person will not get a sacramental marriage, there will be no marriage. One cannot have sex with a person with whom one has only a civil marriage just because one is certain that his marriage is invalid. Even in an obvious case, as in my example of someone being forced at gun point and all witnesses lying, one still cannot decide that the person needs no decree and that civil marriage is now sufficient to avoid fornication. The fact that one is unable to marry does not mean that one can have non-marital sex without sinning at all. It will just be fornication and not adultery.

Sometimes it is obvious that a marriage was not valid. In which case you do not refer the person to the tribunal. What surprises me, is that if the person’s prior marriage is not valid, that the priest would not direct the person to get married in the Church this time around. I’m assuming that the first marriage is invalid.

Even a justice of peace marriage requires a decree, although the trial is a simplified one in those cases. But this cannot be skipped. People should resolve every attempt at marriage before beginning to date.

 

[JReducation]

Cutting a marriage because it’s no longer satisfying but without an intention to remarry is abandonment. When the Church says that what God put together man should not put asunder, this does not mean that everything is fine as long as one doesn’t remarry. This said, a civil divorce may sometimes be necessary, but I think in many cases it seems to be a final act of interrupting marital cohabitation for good, in which case it is not necessary and gives rise to wrong ideas, such as that a sacramental marriage ends, which it cannot, as we all know.

Masturbation is grave matter, but many masturbators suffer from defects of reason or will. Where’s room for a difference of opinion here - other than merely disagreeing whether it was already a mortal sin or not yet on the account of the actor’s knowledge and consent? As you say later in your post, both can be looking at culpability, however I’m not sure there’s much that can be said about “angles”.

One priest is right and the other is wrong. They cannot be right at the same time if their opinions contradict each other. Further, one act is either mortally sinful or not, but not both at the same time. We might not know which priest is right and which wrong, but objectively one of them is right and the other is wrong.

That only makes the difference between adultery and fornication. Say, the person was forced at gun point, but all witnesses lie and the tribunal is misled, issuing a decree for validity. The person then has sex with a third party. I don’t think anyone would call it adultery with the understanding that the forced party was really forced. However, fornication remains since that person is not married to the third party. That person is in a horrible situation, but still cannot just have a civil marriage and have sex with the third party.

Any person who has attempted marriage needs a decree. The marriage possesses the favour of the law. That person will not get a sacramental marriage. And if that person will not get a sacramental marriage, there will be no marriage. One cannot have sex with a person with whom one has only a civil marriage just because one is certain that his marriage is invalid. Even in an obvious case, as in my example of someone being forced at gun point and all witnesses lying, one still cannot decide that the person needs no decree and that civil marriage is now sufficient to avoid fornication. The fact that one is unable to marry does not mean that one can have non-marital sex without sinning at all. It will just be fornication and not adultery.

Even a justice of peace marriage requires a decree, although the trial is a simplified one in those cases. But this cannot be skipped. People should resolve every attempt at marriage before beginning to date.

Very well written, as a good civil attorney. Now we have to examine it as good Spiritual Theologians.

JR

 

[Makerteacher]

I have posted this on other threads, but it might bear repeating here.

I was a convert and the teachings of the RCC on birth control were difficult for me to accept or agree with. Nonetheless, when I converted, I agreed to accept all the teachings of the RCC, and so I accepted it. When I got married a few years later, my husband and I obeyed this teaching. It was ONLY through living out the teaching that I was able to finally see the reasons behind it and the great beauty it offered me. It was ONLY by living it sacrificially that I received the grace to both understand and eventually assent enthusiastically to it.

Now I cannot imagine why I ever struggled with it.

 

[fix]

I have posted this on other threads, but it might bear repeating here.

I was a convert and the teachings of the RCC on birth control were difficult for me to accept or agree with. Nonetheless, when I converted, I agreed to accept all the teachings of the RCC, and so I accepted it. When I got married a few years later, my husband and I obeyed this teaching. It was ONLY through living out the teaching that I was able to finally see the reasons behind it and the great beauty it offered me. It was ONLY by living it sacrificially that I received the grace to both understand and eventually assent enthusiastically to it.

Now I cannot imagine why I ever struggled with it.

Amen. The Church is the authority. All the seeking of theological loopholes and nuance cannot change what is true.

 

[miguel]

My guess is that Humanae Vitae didn’t 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 wouldn’t 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?

You’re right. The person using them outside of marriage probably isn’t too concerned about the morality of doing so. But one of the concerns of Humanae Vitae was that widespread availability of contraceptives would facilitate sexual immorality.

 

[RobertLGarrett]

You’re right. The person using them outside of marriage probably isn’t too concerned about the morality of doing so. But one of the concerns of Humanae Vitae was that widespread availability of contraceptives would facilitate sexual immorality.

Yes, and that was a valid concern. Obviously, sexual morality has worsened since birth control was legalized.