Conscience - Aboriginal Vicar of Christ

[IsaiahSpirit]

P. S.
Please please please, don’t tell me that some pharmaceuticals which only have a holistic healing intent, (not against thing that GOD gave us deliberate attempts to artificially go against GOD’s natural self giving relations that may pro-create a child;
but natural cycles make the possibility less when not trying to produce a child; but welcome the child if this should happen); do not apply to the some of things alluded to in the following definition. I do know that.

pharmacy (n.)​

late 14c., “a medicine,” from Old French farmacie “a purgative” (13c.), from Medieval Latin pharmacia, from Greek pharmakeia “use of drugs, medicines, potions, or spells; poisoning, witchcraft; remedy, cure,” from pharmakeus (fem. pharmakis) “preparer of drugs, poisoner, sorcerer” from pharmakon “drug, poison, philter, charm, spell, enchantment.” Beekes writes that the original meaning cannot be clearly established, and “The word is clearly Pre-Greek.” - source: pharmacy | Origin and meaning of pharmacy by Online Etymology Dictionary

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The magisterium teaches, and the people accept.

It is perfectly good and right for the laity to make their concerns known to the hierarchy and the magisterium. However, truth does not “bubble up” from the laity. The pope and bishops do not canvass the laity, they do not say “let’s see how the laity are thinking these days, and if there’s something that’s not to their liking, let’s take a closer look at it, because after all, X million Catholics can’t be wrong”. If it were something on which everyone in the Catholic Church, or pretty much everyone, were agreed upon, and had always agreed upon, then yes, that would carry a lot of weight — we have assurance that the whole Church can never fall into error, otherwise the gates of hell would have prevailed.

I think we all know the “big issues” on which large numbers of people, in this part of the Church or that — as opposed to the whole Church throughout the world, in its entirety — dissent or disagree. They are issues that relate to marriage and sexuality — contraception, premarital sex of all types, divorce and remarriage without benefit of annulment, homosexual activity, and to some extent abortion. Being able to stand back and objectively assess the proper and ordered use of one’s sexuality, and to accept the consequences of that, is not exactly the human race’s strong suit. Human nature is notoriously weak in this regard — some speculate that the original sin of Adam and Eve was a sexual sin, and that the fruit mentioned in the Bible is just a metaphor — and when you have the larger society begging and pleading for greater license in these matters, it’s very hard for Catholics to resist this siren call. Some don’t even bother resisting.

“Nobody believes that there’s anything wrong with X anymore, why can’t we do X like everyone else?”. That’s not being objective or seeking truth. That’s not “conscience”. That’s just wanting to have fun like everyone else gets to do. And then for these people to say “our conscience doesn’t tell us that’s wrong”? Of course it’s not going to! When you hear it constantly from all quarters, when ostensibly “good, religious people” of other faiths aren’t troubled by it, when the media brainwashes everyone, when doing this or that is presented as being cool, or hip, or enlightened, or progressive, or “up with the times”, no, you’re not going to think that anything’s wrong with it. The secular and non-Catholic world, in a very real way, becomes our magisterium.

 

[Freddy]

“Nobody believes that there’s anything wrong with X anymore, why can’t we do X like everyone else?”

How about: 'A lot of people believe there’s nothing wrong with X after considering it carefully. So why can’t we do X because we have thought about it carefully as well.

Is that not a valid comment as to how a lot of people approach moral problems?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

“Nobody believes that there’s anything wrong with X anymore, why can’t we do X like everyone else?”

Some may, but I don’t think the typical Joe/Josephine Dissenting Catholic in the pew approaches it that way. It seems as though they say “there’s nothing wrong with X, I don’t care what the Church says, nobody thinks that way anymore, the priests don’t know, and anyway, there are a whole lot of good people in the world who do X”. They take the Church’s teachings with a grain of salt and then proceed to do whatever they want to do, with all the confidence in the world that they’re right and the Church is wrong. No, I don’t think they do a lot of thinking or agonizing over it. They’ve got their minds made up.

This way of thinking does exist. For any given issue, I am not going to get into parsing whether it is a few, or some, or many, or most, or practically all — then you get the objection “how do you know, have you asked everybody?”, which I am willing to assume, for the sake of charity, is a sincere question and not just a thought-killer. If it’s important for the reader to get a handle on how widespread dissent and disobedience toward X is, I think their common sense will answer that.

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

@HomeschoolDad

No, I don’t think they do a lot of thinking or agonizing over it. They’ve got their minds made up.

---

Many times this is due to the current climate of ambiguity with subjective seemingly logical emotionally based ideas. I’m sure the psychological factor of ‘denial’ plays an important factor toward a seemingly lack of inner conflict fallible human sense of peace;
not hearing very clearly The Grace of God by The Power of The Holy Spirit to ask, seek, and knock to take a diligent journey of turning toward JESUS and GOD’s objective impartial Ways (repentance) for growing in The Lord Jesus’ Peace which He gives not as the world gives. We know His Peace far surpasses all human understanding.
And example of Scripture, which read with wisdom with very clear Verses;
is the Epistle of Jude - whereby the ills of The Church, therefore society with striving, dissensions, and division - is from what dissenters do. So, all the ills of society can be traced back to this.
The healing of families toward returning to a greater sense of The Sacred and common decency is paramount for all social concerns in every venue made up by family members.
Peace.

“For certain intruders have stolen in among you, people who long ago were designated for this condemnation as ungodly, who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.” - Jude v. 4
" But you, beloved, must remember the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; for they said to you, “In the last time there will be scoffers, indulging their own ungodly lusts." It is these worldly people, devoid of the Spirit, who are causing divisions. But you, beloved, build yourselves up on your most holy faith; pray in the Holy Spirit; keep yourselves in the love of God; look forward to the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life." - Jude 17-21

 

[Freddy]

They take the Church’s teachings with a grain of salt and then proceed to do whatever they want to do, with all the confidence in the world that they’re right and the Church is wrong. No, I don’t think they do a lot of thinking or agonizing over it. They’ve got their minds made up.

But you’re a smart guy. You must know how statements like that can be taken. And will be taken. It comes across as ‘I’ve done a lot of thinking about this and I believe the church is right. You on the other hand have put no thought into it at all and are just brainwashed by the media etc’ (and the ‘etc’ covers a lot of derogatory comments you made upstream).

Do you think that’s going to a) change people’s minds or b) get their back up and start an argument.

 

[EndTimes]

How about: 'A lot of people believe there’s nothing wrong with X after considering it carefully . So why can’t we do X because we have thought about it carefully as well .

Is that not a valid comment as to how a lot of people approach moral problems?

Or… how about never making broad-brush_ed comments upon large groups?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

They take the Church’s teachings with a grain of salt and then proceed to do whatever they want to do, with all the confidence in the world that they’re right and the Church is wrong. No, I don’t think they do a lot of thinking or agonizing over it. They’ve got their minds made up.

Neither one.

I really don’t think that the average person in the pew, who does not accept the Church’s teaching on X (contraception would be the most salient example of X, but it is not the only example), has gone through a sophisticated thought process, weighed the pros and cons, prayed over it for wisdom, and then come to a mature, sober decision respectfully to dissent from teaching X and to live accordingly. Possibly some do. But I think it is far more prevalent for people simply to come at a difficult issue from the a priori assumption of “I am going to do what I want to do, I am right, a whole lot of people think just like I do on this, and that’s the end of the discussion”. I would be surprised if they even think it through that much. Their implicit assumption is “society can’t be wrong”, and the concept of “I must accept what the Church teaches, even though I don’t understand it, and even though it’s going to cause me difficulty and force me to make sacrifices” is just not something that people generally embrace. And very often, they’ve just never been told — and even if they were, it’s highly likely that a priest or other teacher told them “you can follow your conscience, and if you don’t think there’s anything wrong with it, then you’re okay”. That is what the priest told us in our high school religion class about contraception. Even though, a few years later, that particular priest got in more trouble than you can imagine for having been in a long-term affair with an underage female student — talk about something hitting the fan! — I seriously doubt that many people in that class said “any priest who would do something like that isn’t a reliable guide on moral issues, so maybe he was wrong and Pope Paul VI was right after all”. No, he told them what was easy, what they wanted to hear, and I think dollars gets you donuts, that this was the last thought they ever gave to the matter. I would be very pleased to find out otherwise, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Or… how about never making broad-brush_ed comments upon large groups?

But sometimes, you can do precisely that, because it’s true.

 

[AlNg]

I think we all know the “big issues” on which large numbers of people, in this part of the Church or that — as opposed to the whole Church throughout the world, in its entirety — dissent or disagree. They are issues that relate to marriage and sexuality — contraception,

you have the larger society begging and pleading for greater license in these matters,

As far as contraception goes, one of the arguments concerns a conflict of two principles’
On the one hand we have the Catholic teaching that contraception is wrong,
But on the other hand we have the fact that there is a unitive aspect to marriage and there is an ethical need to be good stewards of the planet and not let global warming, air pollution, mercury poisoning of fish, killing off of bees due to insecticides, and all of the other problems stemming from overpopulation - not to let these things get out of control. Even some religious leaders have been saying that parents should not be like rabbits and have such large families as before.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

But on the other hand we have the fact that there is a unitive aspect to marriage and there is an ethical need to be good stewards of the planet and not let global warming, air pollution, mercury poisoning of fish, killing off of bees due to insecticides, and all of the other problems stemming from overpopulation - not to let these things get out of control. Even some religious leaders have been saying that parents should not be like rabbits and have such large families as before.

And that can all be accomplished through periodic abstinence and making use of the natural indications of fertility in the female body. To say that this can’t happen unless artificial means are used — and you did not say that, I’m just clarifying the issue — is contrary to the dignity of the human person. We are not animals who can’t control our passions and urges. We may choose not to, but that is not the same thing as “can’t”.

 

[AlNg]

And that can all be accomplished through periodic abstinence

The argument is that this can be detrimental to the unitive purpose of marriage. And it is a problem when one spouse refuses relations.
Further, if this can be accomplished easily through periodic abstinence, you would think that this method might be popular among Roman Catholics. But what percentage of married Roman Catholics actually do practice NFP as distinct from those who are using other methods such as the pill, etc.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

And that can all be accomplished through periodic abstinence

It’s not detrimental when both spouses are “on the same page” and are mutually willing to make whatever sacrifices they have to make.

Answering the call to the vocation of marriage is not easy. I have never heard of a marriage, lived in accord with God’s plan, that was “all easy all the time”. Not everyone should marry. Some should remain single and celibate for life. Some have no choice in the matter.

Further, if this can be accomplished easily through periodic abstinence, you would think that this method might be popular among Roman Catholics. But what percentage of married Roman Catholics actually do practice NFP as distinct from those who are using other methods such as the pill, etc.

It’s not popular because it’s hard and requires sacrifice. Everyone’s not up for that. Using contraception and getting sterilized makes life much easier, and makes marriage something pretty much anyone could enjoy and embrace — according to the world, if you just absolutely, positively don’t want children at all, just have a fairly simple operation done, and presto, you’re good to go.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

How about: 'A lot of people believe there’s nothing wrong with X after considering it carefully . So why can’t we do X because we have thought about it carefully as well .

Is that not a valid comment as to how a lot of people approach moral problems?

Or… how about never making broad-brush_ed comments upon large groups?

Exactly…

 

[AlNg]

according to the world, if you just absolutely, positively don’t want children at all, just have a fairly simple operation done, and presto, you’re good to go.

That is not the issue here. The issue is whether or not large families, such as 10 children or so, are appropriate when the world is facing problems due to overpopulation. It is not a matter of having no children, it is a question of whether or not, having a family of three or more children satisfies the procreative conditions of marriage but we are still left with the unitive aspects. Judging from reported statistics on large percentages of Roman Catholic families using contraception and from the fact that at the local church almost everyone goes to communion, while there are no confession lines, would this not indicate that many Roman Catholic families believe that there are serious reasons as to why it is acceptable for them to use contraceptives and that it is not a matter of unbridled liberty and disregard for right and wrong? Are all these Roman Catholics wrong to follow their conscience, and if so, why aren’t there more sermons on the evils of contraception. The last sermon i heard was how God welcomes everyone, just as the father welcomed the prodigal son who spent all his money on loose women, and just as Jesus welcomes the outcasts, so must we welcome all gay Catholics and those in irregular relationships.

 

[EndTimes]

Or… how about never making broad-brush_ed comments upon large groups?

Always easy to say. and yet Which often demands solid evidences/supportive argumentation…

 

[Dovekin]

The last sermon i heard was how God welcomes everyone, just as the father welcomed the prodigal son who spent all his money on loose women, and just as Jesus welcomes the outcasts, so must we welcome all gay Catholics and those in irregular relationships.

This was a sermon on the evils of contraception, because the evil in contraception is the refusal to accept everyone that God chooses to put in your care. By encouraging he acceptance of everyone, the priest is seeking to encourage the basic attitude of faith that accepts the children God chooses to give us.

Other than that, I agree completely with you. Contraception is not a simplistic decision to indulge oneself, but is an issue of competing goods: the unity of the couple, the integrity of the earth, and God’s abundant gifts to us.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

That is not the issue here. The issue is whether or not large families, such as 10 children or so, are appropriate when the world is facing problems due to overpopulation. It is not a matter of having no children, it is a question of whether or not, having a family of three or more children satisfies the procreative conditions of marriage but we are still left with the unitive aspects.

I do not think many families anymore, even those who practice NFP, are having ten children. Really, in all honesty, I think a family with three children is about right — this would be replacement level with some room for growth. Countries where families have on an average of three children would not die out, and would grow modestly.

Just as a side note, I do think it’s worth bringing up, that there is a subculture within traditional Catholicism (TLM adherents, but not all of them, and not only TLM adherents) that disapproves of even NFP — yes, you read that right — and welcomes as many children as happen to be born naturally, with no regard of fertility cycles one way or the other. While I am all in favor of having as many faithful, orthodox, traditionalist Catholics in the world as possible — this relatively small subculture isn’t going to affect global warming (assuming such a thing exists, and assuming that human activity could affect it) or other alleged problems created by “overpopulation” — I do need to note that this requires a husband with massive earning power (not to mention a wife who is strong and healthy enough both to carry and bear seven, eight, nine, ten children, and care for the ones already born at the same time). Not many men make that kind of money these days. I also assume that when a family in this subculture reaches a size where “one more” couldn’t possibly be risked, the couple would simply quit having relations until after the menopause.

I do agree that marriage has both a procreative and a unitive function, but I would also note that this dichotomy is something of fairly recent origin. That may be a development of doctrine, and that is fine. But I would note that marriage exists primarily for the begetting and raising of children, and only secondarily for any other reason. And many things can happen within a marriage which would dictate that a couple can only rarely have relations, or even not at all — an injury or illness, or a forced separation for a long period of time (prison sentence, prolonged military deployment, etc.). Is the marriage then ruined? Does it become something that absolutely cannot be borne? Is there such a thing as “in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer”?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Judging from reported statistics on large percentages of Roman Catholic families using contraception and from the fact that at the local church almost everyone goes to communion, while there are no confession lines, would this not indicate that many Roman Catholic families believe that there are serious reasons as to why it is acceptable for them to use contraceptives and that it is not a matter of unbridled liberty and disregard for right and wrong?

Let me get this straight. People have said something like “I know what the Church teaches, and I know that generally speaking, we are supposed to listen to what the Church says, but on this one issue, I need a free pass. I just don’t think it’s wrong for me. It would be too hard to live that way. My spouse and I need to be available to one another. Abstinence is unnatural. And it just doesn’t feel wrong. The Catholic Church is the only church that teaches this, and that’s not enough. This is one time when the Church goes too far. I’m going to do what I think is right.”

Okay, so far, so good. You say “there are no confession lines”. Why not? If our hypothetical dissident Catholic is convinced this is no sin, then why don’t they go to confession and just not mention it? Last time I checked, confession was only for confessing sins. You don’t confess non-sins. Priests generally don’t bring it up — I took quite a shellacking on CAF a few months back when I commented that priests should ask if they have reason to think a penitent is contracepting. So what’s the problem with going to confession?

Are all these Roman Catholics wrong to follow their conscience

First of all, I’m not convinced that it’s so much “conscience”, as being presented with something they don’t want to have to do (or not do), and rejecting it out of hand, or if they’re a bit more thoughtful, finding reasons not to agree with it. Do they do this through a dispassionate, objective consideration of the matter? Or do they start out saying “I’m not doing that” and find reasons to justify it? That is not “conscience” either. I have to think that very, very often, they’ve got their mind made up from the get-go.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

why aren’t there more sermons on the evils of contraception

There should be. Not every week, but it should be brought up every so often — I’d say once a month or so, woven into a sermon on another related subject — and probably once or twice a year, there needs to be a sermon dedicated to it. Pope Paul VI appealed to bishops to consider this “one of your most urgent responsibilities at the present time” (HV #30).

These were his exact words to priests (HV #28):

"And now, beloved sons, you who are priests, you who in virtue of your sacred office act as counselors and spiritual leaders both of individual men and women and of families—We turn to you filled with great confidence. For it is your principal duty—We are speaking especially to you who teach moral theology—to spell out clearly and completely the Church’s teaching on marriage. In the performance of your ministry you must be the first to give an example of that sincere obedience, inward as well as outward, which is due to the magisterium of the Church. For, as you know, the pastors of the Church enjoy a special light of the Holy Spirit in teaching the truth. (39) And this, rather than the arguments they put forward, is why you are bound to such obedience. Nor will it escape you that if men’s peace of soul and the unity of the Christian people are to be preserved, then it is of the utmost importance that in moral as well as in dogmatic theology all should obey the magisterium of the Church and should speak as with one voice. Therefore We make Our own the anxious words of the great Apostle Paul and with all Our heart We renew Our appeal to you: “I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.”

The last sermon i heard was how God welcomes everyone, just as the father welcomed the prodigal son who spent all his money on loose women, and just as Jesus welcomes the outcasts, so must we welcome all gay Catholics and those in irregular relationships.

I am all in favor of welcoming everyone, welcoming the outcast, welcoming gay Catholics and those in irregular relationships and situations. Jesus never turned anyone away and neither should we. But that is not the same thing as telling them that it is okay for them to sin, and to live in sin.

 

[AlNg]

If our hypothetical dissident Catholic

I doubt that it is only one Catholic that thinks that way.