condoms vs nfp. what's really the dif??

[Abu]

Understanding the problem unwittingly created by Galileo.

catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0138.html
The Galileo Legend, THOMAS LESSL (Thomas Lessl. “The Galileo Legend.” *New Oxford Review *(June 2000): 27-33).
“The judgment against Copernicanism came at a time when the Church was greatly preoccupied with the challenges of the Protestant Reformation.
The Church’s first formal response to the Copernican hypothesis seems to have been triggered by Galileo’s Letter to Castelli, an apology for Copernicanism which advocated a figurative reading of Scripture in order to resolve the theory’s apparent conflicts with the Bible. Although Galileo’s approach to biblical interpretation was completely in keeping with the Catholic tradition, it had another more troubling implication. Galileo was asserting, in effect, that where scientific findings conflicted with the literal sense of the Scriptures, scientists should have the right to independently determine what the Bible means. For a scientist to assert this was tantamount to sanctioning the private interpretation of the Bible, a Protestant view expressly forbidden by the Council of Trent. Galileo had unwittingly embroiled the Copernican question in a much larger and more complex controversy.”

rtforum.org/lt/lt57.html
by Brian W. Harrison
“In the case of Rome’s 17th-century insistence on geocentrism, we have a teaching which was promulgated only in disciplinary documents, not in formally doctrinal ones and only indirectly for only 141 years (1616-1757), through the Vatican Congregations of the Index and the Holy Office, never promulgated directly and personally by any Pope.”

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Understanding the problem unwittingly created by Galileo.

catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0138.html
The Galileo Legend, THOMAS LESSL (Thomas Lessl. “The Galileo Legend.” *New Oxford Review *(June 2000): 27-33).
“The judgment against Copernicanism came at a time when the Church was greatly preoccupied with the challenges of the Protestant Reformation.
The Church’s first formal response to the Copernican hypothesis seems to have been triggered by Galileo’s Letter to Castelli, an apology for Copernicanism which advocated a figurative reading of Scripture in order to resolve the theory’s apparent conflicts with the Bible. Although Galileo’s approach to biblical interpretation was completely in keeping with the Catholic tradition, it had another more troubling implication. Galileo was asserting, in effect, that where scientific findings conflicted with the literal sense of the Scriptures, scientists should have the right to independently determine what the Bible means. For a scientist to assert this was tantamount to sanctioning the private interpretation of the Bible, a Protestant view expressly forbidden by the Council of Trent. Galileo had unwittingly embroiled the Copernican question in a much larger and more complex controversy.”

rtforum.org/lt/lt57.html
by Brian W. Harrison
“In the case of Rome’s 17th-century insistence on geocentrism, we have a teaching which was promulgated only in disciplinary documents, not in formally doctrinal ones and only indirectly for only 141 years (1616-1757), through the Vatican Congregations of the Index and the Holy Office, never promulgated directly and personally by any Pope.”

“1758 – Pope Benedict XIV removes Copernicus’ book from the Index, after editors removed nine sentences which taught that heliocentrism was a certainty. This was consistent with the Congregation’s decree in 1616 that the book would be banned until “corrected.” However, the Church’s condemnations of Copernicanism on the grounds that its teachings are heretical and contrary to Scripture is not (and never has been) overturned.”"

“In fact, three Popes (Paul V, Urban VIII and Alexander VII) have officially declared that heliocentrism is opposed to Sacred Scripture, and condemned the notion that heliocentrism was a truth to be believed with certainty.”

“Pope Leo XIII explained why we are required to hold to the interpretation of the Fathers when they are unanimous: “the Holy Fathers, We say, are of supreme authority, whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the Bible, as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals; for their unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down from the Apostles as a matter of Catholic faith” (Providentissimus Deus, 1893, no. 14).
**The Fathers unanimously interpreted the Scriptures to support a geocentric cosmology. ** According to Trent and Vatican I (two dogmatic ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church), we are not permitted to depart from their interpretation of the Scriptures, because their interpretation is deemed to have come from the Apostles. Those who reject geocentrism must explain why they do not submit to this rule of biblical interpretation set forth by two infallible councils.”

Saint Bellarmine had this to say:
“to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens…and the earth… revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing…by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false.”
“Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith…It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.”

1616 – On March 5, the Congregation of the Index condemns all writings which treated Copernicanism as anything but an unproven hypothesis. The Congregation declared that such a theory was “false and contrary to Holy Scripture, which teaches the motion of the earth and the immobility of the sun, and which is taught by Nicolas Copernicus in De revolutiionibus orbium caelestium…being spread by… Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini…Therefore, so that this opinion may not spread any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth, it decrees that the said… De revolutiionibus orbium caelestium…be suspended until corrected; but that the book of the Carmelite Father, Paolo Foscarini, be prohibited and condemned.” Pope Paul V presided at this Congregation and, while his name is not on the decree, approved and ordered the decree as supreme teacher of the Church.

Pope Urban VIII took full responsibility for the condemnation of Galileo by enforcing “in forma communi” the Congregation’s prohibitions against books holding the Copernican system as truth.

I think it’s pretty clear that geocentrism was a formal Church teaching based on a false interpretation of scripture, which tells us without a doubt, that the Church can and HAS erred in scriptural interpretation.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Understanding the problem unwittingly created by Galileo.

catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0138.html
The Galileo Legend, THOMAS LESSL (Thomas Lessl. “The Galileo Legend.” *New Oxford Review *(June 2000): 27-33).
“The judgment against Copernicanism came at a time when the Church was greatly preoccupied with the challenges of the Protestant Reformation.
The Church’s first formal response to the Copernican hypothesis seems to have been triggered by Galileo’s Letter to Castelli, an apology for Copernicanism which advocated a figurative reading of Scripture in order to resolve the theory’s apparent conflicts with the Bible. Although Galileo’s approach to biblical interpretation was completely in keeping with the Catholic tradition, it had another more troubling implication. Galileo was asserting, in effect, that where scientific findings conflicted with the literal sense of the Scriptures, scientists should have the right to independently determine what the Bible means. For a scientist to assert this was tantamount to sanctioning the private interpretation of the Bible, a Protestant view expressly forbidden by the Council of Trent. Galileo had unwittingly embroiled the Copernican question in a much larger and more complex controversy.”

rtforum.org/lt/lt57.html
by Brian W. Harrison
“In the case of Rome’s 17th-century insistence on geocentrism, we have a teaching which was promulgated only in disciplinary documents, not in formally doctrinal ones and only indirectly for only 141 years (1616-1757), through the Vatican Congregations of the Index and the Holy Office, never promulgated directly and personally by any Pope.”

“1758 – Pope Benedict XIV removes Copernicus’ book from the Index, after editors removed nine sentences which taught that heliocentrism was a certainty. This was consistent with the Congregation’s decree in 1616 that the book would be banned until “corrected.” However, the Church’s condemnations of Copernicanism on the grounds that its teachings are heretical and contrary to Scripture is not (and never has been) overturned.”"

“In fact, three Popes (Paul V, Urban VIII and Alexander VII) have officially declared that heliocentrism is opposed to Sacred Scripture, and condemned the notion that heliocentrism was a truth to be believed with certainty.”

“Pope Leo XIII explained why we are required to hold to the interpretation of the Fathers when they are unanimous: “the Holy Fathers, We say, are of supreme authority, whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the Bible, as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals; for their unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down from the Apostles as a matter of Catholic faith” (Providentissimus Deus, 1893, no. 14).
**The Fathers unanimously interpreted the Scriptures to support a geocentric cosmology. ** According to Trent and Vatican I (two dogmatic ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church), we are not permitted to depart from their interpretation of the Scriptures, because their interpretation is deemed to have come from the Apostles. Those who reject geocentrism must explain why they do not submit to this rule of biblical interpretation set forth by two infallible councils.”

Saint Bellarmine had this to say:
“to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens…and the earth… revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing…by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false.”
“Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith…It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.”

1616 – On March 5, the Congregation of the Index condemns all writings which treated Copernicanism as anything but an unproven hypothesis. The Congregation declared that such a theory was “false and contrary to Holy Scripture, which teaches the motion of the earth and the immobility of the sun, and which is taught by Nicolas Copernicus in De revolutiionibus orbium caelestium…being spread by… Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini…Therefore, so that this opinion may not spread any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth, it decrees that the said… De revolutiionibus orbium caelestium…be suspended until corrected; but that the book of the Carmelite Father, Paolo Foscarini, be prohibited and condemned.” Pope Paul V presided at this Congregation and, while his name is not on the decree, approved and ordered the decree as supreme teacher of the Church.

Pope Urban VIII took full responsibility for the condemnation of Galileo by enforcing “in forma communi” the Congregation’s prohibitions against books holding the Copernican system as truth.

I think it’s pretty clear that geocentrism was a formal Church teaching based on a false interpretation of scripture (not to mention the fact that this had been a constant teaching since the beginning of the CC), which tells us without a doubt, that the Church can and HAS erred in scriptural interpretation.

This was a CONSTANT belief and teaching from the Magisterium for over 1750 years, endorsed publicly by Pope after Pope and ALL of the Church fathers. No official Papal decree or document would be necessary to confirm this.

Face it, the Church wrongly interpreted scripture and promulgated that teaching for almost 2000 years.

scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism.html

 

[Abu]

It is only in matters of faith and morals that the unanimity of the Fathers binds. This is the teaching of Trent, Vatican I, and Leo XIII.

rtforum.org/lt/lt73.html (Fr Brian Harrison)
“After all, the Fathers and Doctors of antiquity held it as certain and undoubted that the earth was immobile at the centre of the universe, and the geocentric world-view was not only upheld by Galileo’s inquisitors (to say nothing of a theologian as great as St. Robert Bellarmine), but had already by that time been enshrined in the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

“Whether or not the traditional belief in geocentrism ultimately turns out to be vindicated by science, 62 it cannot be shown that, in the period prior to Galileo, the second of Vatican II’s four requirements for an infallible teaching was fulfilled in regard to that belief: the requirement that the teaching be proposed precisely as a matter of faith or morals. The geocentric world-view was based fundamentally on natural reasoning or philosophy, and indeed, on what seemed to everyone, educated and unlettered alike, mere common sense. For that reason the earlier Fathers and theologians understandably read that world-view into certain biblical texts when they had occasion to comment on them. But the well-spring or root of that sense of certitude which churchmen enjoyed for sixteen centuries with respect to geocentrism was always the seeming requirements of natural reason, rather than the revealed Word of God as such. Certainly, there is no reason to doubt that the ancient human authors of Scripture, like all their contemporaries, personally adhered to, or took for granted, the geocentric world-view. However, as Leo XIII explained over a century ago in the encyclical Providentissimus, that in itself does not prove that geocentrism was formally taught by them when they described certain cosmic phenomena “according to the appearances.”

Note
“62. Most readers will probably be surprised that I even raise the possibility that geocentrism could be scientifically rehabilitated! The fact is, however, that there has been since the 1970s an articulate, if so far very limited, revival of belief in geocentrism among certain Protestants, Catholics and Jews - some of whom have doctorates in disciplines such as astrophysics. They argue not only on the basis of theological and exegetical considerations, but also in the light of new problems raised by post-Einsteinian cosmology and by experiments on the speed of light first carried out in the 1880s by Michelson and Morley. Such experiments consistently give results which seemingly indicate that the sun revolves annually around the earth rather than vice versa; but such a conclusion has been just as consistently deemed unthinkable by the scientific community. It was the desire of Einstein and virtually all other scientists to find a non-geocentric explanation of these Michelson-Morley experiments which led to the formulation of the theory of relativity - which in turn continues to be the object of philosophical and scientific controversy.”

catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp
As a great Saint, Augustine, put it, “One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: ‘I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.’ For he willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians.” Following Augustine’s example, Galileo urged caution in not interpreting these biblical statements too literally.

 

[Vico]

…

Saint Bellarmine had this to say:
“to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens…and the earth… revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing…by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false.”
“Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith…It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.”

…%between%

Here is the letter of Bellarmine:
fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1615bellarmine-letter.html

The complete quote showing the word want to affirm, because it was only a hypothesis at that time, and is not prudent to give a different sense than the holy Fathers, is shown below:

"First. I say that it seems to me that Your Reverence and Galileo did prudently to content yourself with speaking hypothetically, and not absolutely, as I have always believed that Copernicus spoke. For to say that, assuming the earth moves and the sun stands still, all the appearances are saved better than with eccentrics and epicycles, is to speak well; there is no danger in this, and it is sufficient for mathematicians. But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens and only revolves around itself (i. e., turns upon its axis ) without traveling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false. For Your Reverence has demonstrated many ways of explaining Holy Scripture, but you have not applied them in particular, and without a doubt you would have found it most difficult if you had attempted to explain all the passages which you yourself have cited.

"Second. I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter, it is on the part of the ones who have spoken. It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

It is only in matters of faith and morals that the unanimity of the Fathers binds. This is the teaching of Trent, Vatican I, and Leo XIII.

rtforum.org/lt/lt73.html (Fr Brian Harrison)
“After all, the Fathers and Doctors of antiquity held it as certain and undoubted that the earth was immobile at the centre of the universe, and the geocentric world-view was not only upheld by Galileo’s inquisitors (to say nothing of a theologian as great as St. Robert Bellarmine), but had already by that time been enshrined in the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

“Whether or not the traditional belief in geocentrism ultimately turns out to be vindicated by science, 62 it cannot be shown that, in the period prior to Galileo, the second of Vatican II’s four requirements for an infallible teaching was fulfilled in regard to that belief: the requirement that the teaching be proposed precisely as a matter of faith or morals. The geocentric world-view was based fundamentally on natural reasoning or philosophy, and indeed, on what seemed to everyone, educated and unlettered alike, mere common sense. For that reason the earlier Fathers and theologians understandably read that world-view into certain biblical texts when they had occasion to comment on them. But the well-spring or root of that sense of certitude which churchmen enjoyed for sixteen centuries with respect to geocentrism was always the seeming requirements of natural reason, rather than the revealed Word of God as such. Certainly, there is no reason to doubt that the ancient human authors of Scripture, like all their contemporaries, personally adhered to, or took for granted, the geocentric world-view. However, as Leo XIII explained over a century ago in the encyclical Providentissimus, that in itself does not prove that geocentrism was formally taught by them when they described certain cosmic phenomena “according to the appearances.”

Note
“62. Most readers will probably be surprised that I even raise the possibility that geocentrism could be scientifically rehabilitated! The fact is, however, that there has been since the 1970s an articulate, if so far very limited, revival of belief in geocentrism among certain Protestants, Catholics and Jews - some of whom have doctorates in disciplines such as astrophysics. They argue not only on the basis of theological and exegetical considerations, but also in the light of new problems raised by post-Einsteinian cosmology and by experiments on the speed of light first carried out in the 1880s by Michelson and Morley. Such experiments consistently give results which seemingly indicate that the sun revolves annually around the earth rather than vice versa; but such a conclusion has been just as consistently deemed unthinkable by the scientific community. It was the desire of Einstein and virtually all other scientists to find a non-geocentric explanation of these Michelson-Morley experiments which led to the formulation of the theory of relativity - which in turn continues to be the object of philosophical and scientific controversy.”

catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp
As a great Saint, Augustine, put it, “One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: ‘I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.’ For he willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians.” Following Augustine’s example, Galileo urged caution in not interpreting these biblical statements too literally.

Ah yes, but I was not arguing that the geocentric model was INFALLIBLY TAUGHT, as it is not a matter of faith and morals, just as the story of Onan and the interpretation thereof is not a matter of faith and morals. My argument is one against your assertion that:

Faithful Catholics believe what Christ teaches through His Church, which does not teach error through Her Magisterium.

“It is clear, therefore, that sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.” (Dei Verbum 10, Vatican II).

The Church teaches that even non-infallible doctrine requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect.” (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25).

At the 1985 Extraordinary Synod of Bishops, called by John Paul II the then Prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education, Cardinal William Baum in the Synod’s Final Report stated:

“Above all, the exegesis of the original sense of Sacred Scripture, which is strongly recommended by the Council (cf. DV 12) cannot be separated from the living Tradition of the Church (cf. DV 9), nor from the authentic interpretation of the ecclesiastical Magisterium (cf. DV 10).”

[LT68 - POPE PAUL VI AND THE TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE]](LT68 - POPE PAUL VI AND THE TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE])

This was your quote. Does it not apply to the teaching of the Magisterium and the Church Fathers for 1750 years affirming a geocentric model of the solar system? It most certainly does, and the Church was wrong in her literal interpretation of these scriptures, just as the Church is quite possibly wrong about attributing Onan’s death to contraception/masturbation. This was precisely my point.

You know, the Church has never overturned the teaching that the heliocentric model is heretical…are you a geocentrist?

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Here is the letter of Bellarmine:
fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1615bellarmine-letter.html

The complete quote showing the word want to affirm, because it was only a hypothesis at that time, and is not prudent to give a different sense than the holy Fathers, is shown below:

"First. I say that it seems to me that Your Reverence and Galileo did prudently to content yourself with speaking hypothetically, and not absolutely, as I have always believed that Copernicus spoke. For to say that, assuming the earth moves and the sun stands still, all the appearances are saved better than with eccentrics and epicycles, is to speak well; there is no danger in this, and it is sufficient for mathematicians. But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens and only revolves around itself (i. e., turns upon its axis ) without traveling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false. For Your Reverence has demonstrated many ways of explaining Holy Scripture, but you have not applied them in particular, and without a doubt you would have found it most difficult if you had attempted to explain all the passages which you yourself have cited.

"Second. I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter, it is on the part of the ones who have spoken. It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.

Your quote does much more to support my assertion than it does to oppose it.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

It is only in matters of faith and morals that the unanimity of the Fathers binds. This is the teaching of Trent, Vatican I, and Leo XIII.

rtforum.org/lt/lt73.html (Fr Brian Harrison)
“After all, the Fathers and Doctors of antiquity held it as certain and undoubted that the earth was immobile at the centre of the universe, and the geocentric world-view was not only upheld by Galileo’s inquisitors (to say nothing of a theologian as great as St. Robert Bellarmine), but had already by that time been enshrined in the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

“Whether or not the traditional belief in geocentrism ultimately turns out to be vindicated by science, 62 it cannot be shown that, in the period prior to Galileo, the second of Vatican II’s four requirements for an infallible teaching was fulfilled in regard to that belief: the requirement that the teaching be proposed precisely as a matter of faith or morals. The geocentric world-view was based fundamentally on natural reasoning or philosophy, and indeed, on what seemed to everyone, educated and unlettered alike, mere common sense. For that reason the earlier Fathers and theologians understandably read that world-view into certain biblical texts when they had occasion to comment on them. But the well-spring or root of that sense of certitude which churchmen enjoyed for sixteen centuries with respect to geocentrism was always the seeming requirements of natural reason, rather than the revealed Word of God as such. Certainly, there is no reason to doubt that the ancient human authors of Scripture, like all their contemporaries, personally adhered to, or took for granted, the geocentric world-view. However, as Leo XIII explained over a century ago in the encyclical Providentissimus, that in itself does not prove that geocentrism was formally taught by them when they described certain cosmic phenomena “according to the appearances.”

Note
“62. Most readers will probably be surprised that I even raise the possibility that geocentrism could be scientifically rehabilitated! The fact is, however, that there has been since the 1970s an articulate, if so far very limited, revival of belief in geocentrism among certain Protestants, Catholics and Jews - some of whom have doctorates in disciplines such as astrophysics. They argue not only on the basis of theological and exegetical considerations, but also in the light of new problems raised by post-Einsteinian cosmology and by experiments on the speed of light first carried out in the 1880s by Michelson and Morley. Such experiments consistently give results which seemingly indicate that the sun revolves annually around the earth rather than vice versa; but such a conclusion has been just as consistently deemed unthinkable by the scientific community. It was the desire of Einstein and virtually all other scientists to find a non-geocentric explanation of these Michelson-Morley experiments which led to the formulation of the theory of relativity - which in turn continues to be the object of philosophical and scientific controversy.”

catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp
As a great Saint, Augustine, put it, “One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: ‘I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.’ For he willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians.” Following Augustine’s example, Galileo urged caution in not interpreting these biblical statements too literally.

This is a LOT of backpedaling by a very red-faced Catholic Church and everyone knows it. If geocentrism was not a formal teaching, then not to believe it would not be formally declared a heresy, period.

 

[BrushedByAngels]

Where exactly in the New Testament Gospels does it speak of “go out and multiply” When Jesus talks about marriage – we know it is intended only for man and woman (he made that very clear) but I can’t seem to find anything in the NT on procreation.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Where exactly in the New Testament Gospels does it speak of “go out and multiply” When Jesus talks about marriage – we know it is intended only for man and woman (he made that very clear) but I can’t seem to find anything in the NT on procreation.

That’s because it’s not there.

 

[BrushedByAngels]

That’s because it’s not there.

You’d think if it is such a mortal sin to “contracept” it would have been mentioned in the NT.

What I can’t understand is if God says to “go out and multiply” and you have Catholics practicing NFP, wouldn’t that be a mortal sin too; only abstain on days you are fertile and having sexual relations only on the days you are infertile? You are deliberately defeating the natural process of procreation.

 

[mosher]

You’d think if it is such a mortal sin to “contracept” it would have been mentioned in the NT.

What I can’t understand is if God says to “go out and multiply” and you have Catholics practicing NFP, wouldn’t that be a mortal sin too; only abstain on days you are fertile and having sexual relations only on the days you are infertile? You are deliberately defeating the natural process of procreation.

If NFP is used as a contraceptive then, yes, it is a sin. The licit use of NFP places a lot of demands on the couple to have properly formed intentions when using it. This is why I asked earlier if anyone had made the distinction that the Church makes between contraception and birth control. It is an essential distinction to properly understand NFP as a licit means of birth control.

 

[Cherry5]

**If NFP is used as a contraceptive then, yes, it is a sin. ** The licit use of NFP places a lot of demands on the couple to have properly formed intentions when using it. This is why I asked earlier if anyone had made the distinction that the Church makes between contraception and birth control. It is an essential distinction to properly understand NFP as a licit means of birth control.

Interesting point, however can you give us an example when NFP is NOT used as a contraceptive?

Thanks

 

[Maureen1125]

NFP is really only “allowed” as a means for spacing children or when a couple has a “Serious” reason to avoid pregnancy…now you could argue that what is “serious” to 1 couple may not be serious to another. It is very subjective…there are no cut and dry rules.

I would bet that most couples who practice NFP think they are doing it correctly but really their goal is to avoid pregnancy for the next 15yrs or so because they believe their family to be complete which means that they are no longer open to having more children and therefore their use of NFP is just as sinful as anothers choice to use ABC

 

[Maureen1125]

NFP is really only “allowed” as a means for spacing children or when a couple has a “Serious” reason to avoid pregnancy…now you could argue that what is “serious” to 1 couple may not be serious to another. It is very subjective…there are no cut and dry rules.

I would bet that most couples who practice NFP think they are doing it correctly but really their goal is to avoid pregnancy for the next 15yrs or so because they believe their family to be complete which means that they are no longer open to having more children and therefore their use of NFP is just as sinful as anothers choice to use ABC

 

[BrushedByAngels]

NFP is really only “allowed” as a means for spacing children or when a couple has a “Serious” reason to avoid pregnancy…now you could argue that what is “serious” to 1 couple may not be serious to another. It is very subjective…there are no cut and dry rules.

I would bet that most couples who practice NFP think they are doing it correctly but really their goal is to avoid pregnancy for the next 15yrs or so because they believe their family to be complete which means that they are no longer open to having more children and therefore their use of NFP is just as sinful as anothers choice to use ABC

I totally agree

However, I must say all this talk of *married couples must procreate *makes me wonder why it is not mentioned in the NT.

 

[dfp42]

I would bet that most couples who practice NFP think they are doing it correctly but really their goal is to avoid pregnancy for the next 15yrs or so because they believe their family to be complete which means that they are no longer open to having more children and therefore their use of NFP is just as sinful as anothers choice to use ABC

That’s a pretty broad bet. It kinda makes those who are really trying to be faithful to the Church and the use of NFP feel at odds against your bet. Just because sex is such a highly talked about subject doesn’t mean there aren’t people who really are trying to be faithful… no where in the bible does it say without understanding it is impossible to please God, But I’m sure it says without faith it is impossible. Sure others might not totally understand it. Thank God for the time God gives us to learn his ways. In fact when I went to a registered NFP class in my diocese to learn about it, never once was the word sin brought up or even mentioned to the people. I knew about the sin part going into the course with my wife but I can bet you others did not. I remember a girl saying to our NFP teacher after the course that she she thought NFP was nice and all but she was still going to use the pill. Not a word said about the sin aspect of it. People really just flat out don’t know and it is sad. I pray for understanding all the time but I realize without faith it’s impossible.

 

[mosher]

Interesting point, however can you give us an example when NFP is NOT used as a contraceptive?

Thanks

Yes, when the intention of the couple is not contraceptive. All NFP does is provide the couple with knowledge about the female “cycle.” How that knowledge is used with regard to sexual activity in marriage by the couple provides the moral character of the act.

 

[Maureen1125]

dfp…If I am so “wrong” then explain to me why so many families only have 1-3 children. Is that because they have a valid reason after have 1 that they chose not to have others, or because ABC is sinful so they just chose not to be intimate ever again?

It wasn’t that long ago that large families were the norm and now if you have more then 3 kids people look at you like you are some kind of sex addict.

 

[dfp42]

dfp…If I am so “wrong” then explain to me why so many families only have 1-3 children. Is that because they have a valid reason after have 1 that they chose not to have others, or because ABC is sinful so they just chose not to be intimate ever again?

It wasn’t that long ago that large families were the norm and now if you have more then 3 kids people look at you like you are some kind of sex addict.

I never said you were wrong did I? It’s God’s choice when life begins and when it ends so I can’t answer your question in the content that gives me only 2 choices you present. I’m sure when we get to heaven we can ask him. I know that the church allows the practice of NFP. True some people may not *understand perfectly how or when to use it, but that doesn’t mean we go around telling them they can’t use it or attempt to do what the Church teaches for the right reasons. Please show me where in Sacred Tradition it says its a sin to use NFP and also show me a where it states having 1-3 children is a sin in this generation? I respect your opinion but like elbows everyone has a few. I also respect large families and think they are a blessing and hope we will continue to have them. I have never said anything about people looking at you or anyone else as some kind of sex addict. I’m sorry that you feel that people might look at you or others as a sex addict for having more than 3 kids. I’m sure God understands your pain and I’m sure it was his choice for the children to come in this world not your choice or ours ultimately, don’t you think? No one gets to play God. We can of course analyze situations all we went but it is God who decides if a couple is having children not us. If you don’t feel that way, then I’m sorry but it doesn’t change the reality. I’m not here to fight with you on the forums Maureen and I won’t, so say as you will or think as you will, in the end it’s up to God and I really don’t have a better answer to why children come into the world or why people sin or why the Church allows NFP or why bad things happen to good people. It’s a mystery.