Conscience - Aboriginal Vicar of Christ

[HomeschoolDad]

And one more thing. I know that we have also discussed in these forums, at great length, the situation where one partner does not wish to use contraception, and the other one does. Closely related to this is when one partner proposes using NFP and the other partner won’t go along with that method. (There could also be a situation where one partner wants to use NFP but the other one wants to remain open to life and not use even that, but this would be very rare in today’s world.)

Really, honestly, even from a secular standpoint — taking no position on whether contraception is immoral or not — it is a very bad idea for any couple to marry, if they do not have a “meeting of the minds” on what is morally acceptable birth regulation and what is not. It is also a very bad idea not to have “the talk” on how many children you desire, and when (assuming you don’t wish simply to be open to children whenever they come, and “don’t use anything”), and what you are going to do if it becomes difficult or impossible to consider having another child.

You don’t have to be a faithful, orthodox Catholic to see how not being of one mind on this, could cause serious problems down the road, even to the point of destroying the marriage. And I know this will be disliked by some, but I have to think this would be an issue in a Catholic discerning marriage to a non-Catholic. In the world today, trying to get a non-Catholic to exclude ABC as an option, no matter what, is a “pretty big ask”. This isn’t the kind of thing you want to have go wrong within a marriage. If a non-Catholic is good with not using ABC — and I have known of cases in the past, when it was pretty much either a crude and shaky “rhythm method” or condoms, where the non-Catholic was okay with not using ABC and had large, beautiful Catholic families (it was usually the father who was non-Catholic, and converting was common) — that is great, but I have to think it would be rare in today’s world as well.

 

[AlNg]

It wasn’t stealing,

any judge in this country will throw out the case

The law does not allow you to take something which is not yours, even if you don’t think it is stealing. There was a case in the news of a man who was hungry and stole a pizza. He was given several years in jail by the judge. Anyway, I don’t see why people think that a lawyer is the one to decide on whether or not something is intrinsically wrong. It is not going to work to tell the judge that taking the pizza without paying is not a crime and it is not stealing because I have made up my own definition of the word to “steal”.

I would define stealing as

If you are going to redefine concepts and actions so that they are not sins, one should realize that it is possible to redefine contraception in such a way that the use of the birth control pill is not contraception and is therefore not a sin because it doesn’t fit the definition.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

There was a case in the news of a man who was hungry and stole a pizza. He was given several years in jail by the judge.

And that was very wrong. In a social order informed through and through by Catholic principles — be it a monarchy or a “Christian commonwealth” — the crown or the court would certainly cut the hungry man some slack, let him plead his case, allow him to pay for the pizza, and leave it at that. I know if I were the king, I certainly would. Yet one more reason to pray and work for the social reign of Christ the King.

I would define stealing as

Actually, back when Dr John Rock developed the BCP, there was a school of thought that the BCP might be “natural” in that it regulated a natural function. I believe there were priests who told their penitents that the matter was doubtful, and that they could do as they saw fit, pending a decision by the magisterium. Humanae vitae settled that doubt.

 

[Freddy]

In the end, we either choose God, or we do not.

And that I won’t argue against.

 

[AlNg]

Humanae vitae settled that doubt.

However, Catholics believe in development of doctrine; so as new scientific findings come to light, things can change. A redefinition of contraception is possible. just as the conditions required for a marriage annulment have changed in the light of new findings in the field of psychology, or at least that is what i read in a Roman Catholic publication. In 1929, the old definition allowed 9 marriage annulments in the USA. In recent years, the new definition allowed as many as 60,000 marriage annulments per year in the USA. So it is not inconceivable that just as you have redefined stealing, so too, can the authorities redefine what constitutes the sin of contraception. For example, they can say that the use of the pill is a sin if the married couple has the sole intention of preventing the birth of a child. But if the intention of the couple is something else, such as regulation of the woman’s period for health reasons, etc., etc., then the unitive purpose of the marriage comes into play and that - together with the praiseworthy intentions of the couple, are seen to override any concerns that what they are doing is wrong. I did see polls indicating that most married Roman Catholics do not follow the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on the use of contraception, so perhaps they are reasoning somewhat as I have outlined. Generally, Roman Catholics are not bad people. And if the Roman Catholic clergy were concerned about the grave evil of contraceptive use by married couples with children, why are there not more sermons on this question especially in the light of data which indicate that contraception is common?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

However, Catholics believe in development of doctrine; so as new scientific findings come to light, things can change. A redefinition of contraception is possible.

I do not deny that doctrine develops, but I would be hard-pressed to see what “new scientific findings” could emerge to change the definition of contraception. Contraception is the artificial prevention of conception by chemical or barrier means. There’s not much wiggle room there. I have speculated elsewhere on this forum whether barrier methods (such as condoms) could be used with the sole intent of preventing contact of tissues and/or fluids, where such contact can reasonably be foreseen to transmit disease from one partner to the other (such as where the male partner has HIV). Conception would be prevented, but this side effect of preventing contact is only foreseen and not willed or desired. Could the Church one day follow this line of reasoning and allow condom use where one partner (or both) are carrying a disease? I don’t know. I don’t know if this has ever been discussed using that line of reasoning. In the end, though, I would defer to the judgment of the magisterium, whatever that might be.

just as the conditions required for a marriage annulment have changed in the light of new findings in the field of psychology, or at least that is what i read in a Roman Catholic publication. In 1929, the old definition allowed 9 marriage annulments in the USA. In recent years, the new definition allowed as many as 60,000 marriage annulments per year in the USA.

The Church is now willing to look at considerations that could have vitiated consent at the time of the marriage, considerations that were not admitted in the past. That does not indicate any change in the teaching. We now realize, or are willing to admit, that the mindset needed on the wedding day to contract a valid marriage may be more fragile than we once thought. The flip side of this is that, perhaps, better “quality control on the front end” is needed so that we can quit producing so many invalid marriages. The couples have enough wits about them to go through the six-month waiting period, the marital interview, the pre-Cana formation, and so on, but it seems like something is still lacking. That’s something the Church needs to look at, and to work on.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

So it is not inconceivable that just as you have redefined stealing, so too, can the authorities redefine what constitutes the sin of contraception.

I did not “redefine stealing”. First of all, I have no authority to do that. I am not the teaching Church. I do believe the Church’s teaching does not allow for absolute, inalienable, inviolate rights to the total ownership and retention of all of a person’s property, rendering any alienation of it intrinsically evil. If that were the case, I could not run over and grab the neighbor’s water hose and turn on the faucet on the side of his house to put out a brush fire on my adjacent property because, you see, it’s his water hose and his water bill, and I would be “stealing”.

But if the intention of the couple is something else, such as regulation of the woman’s period for health reasons, etc., etc., then the unitive purpose of the marriage comes into play and that - together with the praiseworthy intentions of the couple, are seen to override any concerns that what they are doing is wrong.

Paul VI in Humanae vitae expressly allows use of oral contraceptives to help regulate the woman’s cycle where health considerations make this necessary. This is nothing new. Women both sexually active and inactive (we had a teenage neighbor girl in these circumstances, her mother shared this with my mother) do this all the time. As long as the intent to contracept is absent, the accidental side effect of these medications is just that — an accidental and unwanted side effect. This does not constitute a “redefining of the sin of contraception”.

I did see polls indicating that most married Roman Catholics do not follow the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on the use of contraception, so perhaps they are reasoning somewhat as I have outlined.

Quoting polls seems to be an irritant to some people on CAF — “you can’t know what people are doing, have you interviewed every one of them?” — but regardless of numbers, I don’t think they do much “reasoning” about the matter at all. I don’t think it’s any more complicated than saying (a) “they told us in religion class that it’s okay to do that if your conscience says so” or (b) “I just don’t see anything wrong with it”. Everything in modern society only reinforces the view that contraception is a good thing.

Generally, Roman Catholics are not bad people.

They’re not bad people, agreed, but they are not accustomed to conforming their consciences in all matters to the teaching magisterium of the Church, and that’s a problem, because the Church teaches that they are supposed to do precisely that.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

And if the Roman Catholic clergy were concerned about the grave evil of contraceptive use by married couples with children, why are there not more sermons on this question especially in the light of data which indicate that contraception is common?

Paul VI told them to teach this. He told the bishops that this was one of their most serious obligations at this time. If they don’t obey what he said, that, too, is a problem. Just because they fail to do what they should, does not render the teaching any less true.

 

[AlNg]

Contraception is the artificial prevention of conception by chemical or barrier means. There’s not much wiggle room there.

Who said there was not much wiggle room?

The Church is now willing to look at considerations that could have vitiated consent at the time of the marriage, considerations that were not admitted in the past. That does not indicate any change in the teaching.

When you go from 9 marriage annulments per year to 60,000 marriage annulments per year, most people are going to say that there has been a change, and more or less a radical change.

I did not “redefine stealing”.

I think you did. Stealing is taking what belongs to someone else without permission. That is the definition according to the dictionary. You have a different definition, No?

Paul VI in Humanae vitae expressly allows use of oral contraceptives to help regulate the woman’s cycle where health considerations make this necessary. This is nothing new.

The foot is in the door, so to speak. Oral contraceptives are allowed for one reason. Now what is to prevent a development according to which they may be allowed for a different reason? Just as all kinds of new reasons are brought forth today to justify a marriage annulment, when these reasons were not accepted in the past?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Contraception is the artificial prevention of conception by chemical or barrier means. There’s not much wiggle room there.

Nobody has to “say” it, it’s just the fact of the matter. You either block conception with barriers or chemicals, with the directly intended purpose of preventing conception, or you don’t.

The Church is now willing to look at considerations that could have vitiated consent at the time of the marriage, considerations that were not admitted in the past. That does not indicate any change in the teaching.

And “most people” would be wrong. The Church was incredibly parsimonious with annulments until about 40 years ago, and then the floodgates opened. Some people would say, and I am not necessarily one of these people, that the Church is declaring marriages to be invalid that are, in fact, valid. Some would tell you that more liberal tribunals “symptom-hunt” to find something wrong with the marriage that will allow a finding of nullity. I cannot say whether they do or not, because I am not in those tribunals. I can say that there are procedural norms, and they are designed to find morally certain nullity, not possible, probable, or doubtful nullity. If they are abused, then that’s a problem. It is not unheard of, for annulments to be reversed. That wouldn’t be a good position to be in.

I did not “redefine stealing”.

I don’t go with secular dictionary definitions to address all matters of faith and morality, and neither does the Church. Quite frankly, in the eyes of the world, our definition of “worship” to parse a distinction between latria, dulia, and hyperdulia is playing word games, and any Baptist preacher alive is going to say “let’s face it, you Catholics worship Mary, and no amount of semantic hair-splitting can change that fact”. Not mentioning a fact that someone else would find germane, or telling the truth in such a way that you mislead without using false words, is just called “lying” by the world at large, especially among children. Catholic moral theology actually “bends over backwards” to accommodate everyday people in the real world — Humanae vitae stretches the permissibility of NFP to the breaking point, and there are some in today’s Church who are of the opinion that any use of NFP, for any reason, even for the entire duration of the marriage, is okay, because the means are not immoral. I would welcome a clarification of this from the magisterium, and I may end up requesting that clarification myself.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Paul VI in Humanae vitae expressly allows use of oral contraceptives to help regulate the woman’s cycle where health considerations make this necessary. This is nothing new.

The medication that artificially prevents conception, also addresses and resolves a host of gynecological problems that have nothing to do with preventing conception. The medication itself is morally neutral. The intent is to address a medical problem, and the prevention of conception is simply an unwanted side effect. Nobody is willfully contracepting. If a woman has, let’s say, morbidly heavy periods and the BCP restores her to health, and if she says “wow, this is great, I feel so much better, and on top of that, I can’t get pregnant — that’s pretty cool, I sure am glad of that, I sure wouldn’t want to get pregnant right now”, then yes, that’s a problem of intent, and she needs to use spiritual means (prayer, sacraments, counsel in the sacrament of penance) to rid herself of these thoughts.

 

[AlNg]

The intent is to address a medical problem,

So you can use contraceptives if you have the right intent? It is the intent which determines whether it is right or wrong to use the pill? It is not intrinsically evil to use the pill?
Can this idea be developed as scientific knowledge about human psychology advances?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The intent is to address a medical problem,

No, it is not intrinsically evil to use “the pill” as a medication to treat a condition, and not as a contraceptive. BCPs can be used to treat a wide variety of medical problems that have nothing to do with conception. As long as they are used solely with that intent, they are entirely permissible. The prevention of conception is simply a foreseen and unwanted side effect. The BCP is being used for an “off-label purpose”, if you will. Medicines are used “off-label” all the time, such as Metformin for weight loss or low-dosage aspirin to stave off heart disease.

It is the same as if a woman has to have a hysterectomy because the uterus is cancerous. The unwanted result is that she will no longer be able to bear children. Yet she is having the uterus removed because it is cancerous. She is not having the uterus removed so that she will be sterile from that point forward.

Can this idea be developed as scientific knowledge about human psychology advances?

I really can’t see that happening. You either intend to prevent conception, or you do not intend to prevent conception. The Church has been very consistent in her teaching that directly intended prevention of conception by artificial means is gravely immoral. NFP places no barrier or obstacle to conception other than timing and probability. It is entirely open to life if Almighty God should allow a pregnancy to take place. And just to anticipate the objection, no means of contraception is absolutely foolproof. As I alluded to above, to say “contraception is okay because it doesn’t necessarily prevent conception, if God wills it, conception will take place” is as ridiculous as saying “it’s okay for me to shoot that guy and try to kill him, because I may miss, and he will not die”.

If you have not already done so, I urge you to read Humanae vitae in its entirety. Paul VI addresses many of these concerns.

 

[AlNg]

The Church was incredibly parsimonious with annulments until about 40 years ago

So was the Church saying that people were married, when they were really not validly married?

 

[EndTimes]

And if the Roman Catholic clergy were concerned about the grave evil of contraceptive use by married couples with children, why are there not more sermons on this question especially in the light of data which indicate that contraception is common?

Better yet … On the Evil of Abortion and HomoSexual Sex…

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The Church was incredibly parsimonious with annulments until about 40 years ago

In some cases, I would say so. There’s no way to know.

The Church regards all marriages, where the partners are not bound by previous marriages, as valid until proven invalid, unless it is a case of a Catholic who has not married according to canonical form (“married outside the Church”). A Catholic — and that means anyone who has ever been baptized as Catholic — cannot just “go out and get married”. For instance, someone is baptized Catholic as a baby, yet never practices the Faith, becomes a Baptist in adulthood, receives a “believer’s baptism” by immersion, and marries a Presbyterian. Their marriage is invalid in the eyes of the Catholic Church. That may not sound fair or right, but that’s just the way it is. (That is not a commentary on the state of their soul, just the legality of the matter.)

Likewise, if someone is raised Jewish, is never baptized, and marries a Sikh at a gurdwara ceremony, the Church (if ever asked for her opinion on the matter) presumes their marriage valid until proven to the contrary. It’s not a sacramental marriage, in that both of them are not baptized, but it is still a natural, valid marriage. If two baptized Presbyterians get married in the Presbyterian church, then not only is it valid, but it is also a sacrament, two baptized Christians conferring the sacrament on one another.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

And if the Roman Catholic clergy were concerned about the grave evil of contraceptive use by married couples with children, why are there not more sermons on this question especially in the light of data which indicate that contraception is common?

There are sermons on abortion all the time. That is as it should be.

The Church presently soft-pedals the matter of contraception in actual practice — the subject is rarely brought up. (I would point out, though, that Pope Francis recently reiterated the traditional teaching, and he is not exactly known for being a hardnose on issues of moral theology where marital issues are concerned.) This is not what Paul VI pleaded for in Humanae vitae. “Soft-pedaling” wouldn’t happen on my watch, but alas, I am not a priest, and in all likelihood, I never will be. Lest I be accused of attacking the clergy, I am not going to posit the reasons for its being soft-pedaled — I think the reader can more or less surmise why this is so.

Likewise, homo-sex is rarely denounced from the pulpit, even though it is an issue for relatively few of the faithful, unlike contraception. It should be spoken against. It is an abomination and one of the four sins that cry to heaven for vengeance. (But, bad as it is, at least no one has ever had an abortion on account of it.)

 

[EndTimes]

Likewise, homo-sex is rarely denounced from the pulpit, even though it is an issue for relatively few of the faithful, unlike contraception. It should be spoken against. It is an abomination and one of the four sins that cry to heaven for vengeance. (But, bad as it is, at least no one has ever had an abortion on account of it.)

The Church is almost Silent on its Teachings on Abortion - re: Voting…

The enemy does not want a Christian SCOTUS … or Catholic POTUS

Homo-sexual Sex?

There’s been generations of active homosexuality pouring forth from not just a few Seminaries
which is why Pope Emeritus Benedict - wrote about the vast Homosexual Underground re: Clergy…

Priests… become Bishops … Victims, Silence, Coverup…

Abortion… Active Homosexuality - have been sucessfully peddled by antiChristians via Satan

_