Indeed. At the very first Mass — the Last Supper — one of the apostles received unworthily. That was Judas.
Contraception and vocations
- Thread starter HomeschoolDad
- Start date
- Status
T
thistle
Guest
That should be directed at the guy who has been judging everyone throughout this thread and it certainly is not me.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
You are the one having the problem not him and you choose to be on this thread. He started it too and he isn’t complaining either.
T
thistle
Guest
I guess you have not carefully read all posts in the thread and the likes of posts either!
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
What’s that supposed to mean?
P
Peeps
Guest
Depends on which denomination you’re talking about.
E.g., The Christian and Missionary Alliance has a high percentage of members who tithe consistently. That’s one reason why Protestants join that denomination–they believe in tithing and wish to be with others who believe and practice tithing. Also, the monies given to the C&MA are generally wisely used, with a very large percentage going to overseas missions and helping people who are not WASPs, rather than “youth centers” or “new pulpits” or “redecorating the church offices.”
OTOH, the C&MA in the U.S. is one of the smaller denominations, so it’s obvious that a lot of Protestants do NOT believe in tithing and foreign missions!
Last edited:
S
Sarcelle
Guest
Pray for those that do receive unworthily.
Last edited:
T
thistle
Guest
Judging judging judging!!
You have no clue who receives unworthily or not and it’s none of your business.
G
goout
Guest
I didn’t call any particular person ignorant. This is what I said:
We see ongoing conversations that can’t distinguish the difference between terms like NFP, birth control, and contraception.
In my experience, most Catholics can’t even distinguish between:
chastity, abstinence, continence, celibacy.
That’s an abysmal failure of catechesis, and has led to the distortion of Christian morality in a negative way. “Chastity” evokes a sort of Jansenist negative morality unfortunately.
We also see the conflation of substances like hormone treatments, which are morally neutral, with acts like contraception which can be morally evaluated.
The general public is ignorant of the difference between NFP and contraception. And I would venture that the majority of Catholics are as well.
We see ongoing conversations that can’t distinguish the difference between terms like NFP, birth control, and contraception.
In my experience, most Catholics can’t even distinguish between:
chastity, abstinence, continence, celibacy.
That’s an abysmal failure of catechesis, and has led to the distortion of Christian morality in a negative way. “Chastity” evokes a sort of Jansenist negative morality unfortunately.
We also see the conflation of substances like hormone treatments, which are morally neutral, with acts like contraception which can be morally evaluated.
Last edited:
S
Sarcelle
Guest
Oh good grief!
I did not say that.
I quoted @HomeschoolDad. He said that. You have responded to him several times. You should know he said that. Did you really read my post? That was a quote from him.
Why did you attribute that quote to me?
I’m in the Twilight Zone.
I did not say that.
I quoted @HomeschoolDad. He said that. You have responded to him several times. You should know he said that. Did you really read my post? That was a quote from him.
Why did you attribute that quote to me?
I’m in the Twilight Zone.
Last edited:
T
thistle
Guest
Yip! captured the wrong poster. Sorry about that.Oh good grief!
I did not say that.
I quoted @HomeschoolDad. He said that. You have responded to him several times. You should know he said that. Did you really read my post? That was a quote from him.
Why did you attribute that quote to me?
I’m in the Twilight Zone.
To everyone my post was directed to @HomeschoolDad.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
You’re forgiven.
We cool now.
We cool now.
Could this be a cultural misunderstanding?
I can see why someone from the Philippines could say “we are by and large a Catholic nation, we do have dissidents among us, but by and large we are faithful to the magisterium, Vatican II and the New Mass work just fine for us, thank you very much, we have all the vocations we need, you don’t understand our country, so don’t question our motives or our sincerity”.
I am speaking, obviously, from an American context, where things are quite different. Dissent from the Church’s teaching on contraception is almost universal. I recently read a figure that said 8 percent of Americans do not believe in contraception, and I was flabbergasted — I didn’t think it would be anywhere near that high! I was pleasantly surprised. People (I didn’t say “most” and I didn’t say “many”) dissent from this teaching, use contraception, receive communion, and tell themselves this is perfectly fine. On the other hand, the Traditional Latin Mass is flourishing and may grow even more as “millennials” — an unforeseen demographic in all this — seek worship that is more organic and authentic in their eyes. We do not have nearly all the vocations that we need, but we can look at TLM adherents and see that vocations among them are relatively abundant, just as in days past. Many people are “crazy rich” compared to much of the rest of the world and might, just might, be able to welcome more children than they have.
We have no right to judge the subjective dispositions of anyone. I never said we did, and I would not say such a thing. We have every right, and even the obligation, to call attention to objectively sinful behavior. Some people (it may be “many” and it may even be “most”, if we are to believe the polls) dismiss a consistent magisterial teaching, concerning an objectively mortal sin of the flesh — the kind of sin Our Lady of Fatima warned us about — and live their lives in defiance of that teaching.
T
TMC
Guest
Again, this is because, for the “general public,” there is no difference between NFP and contraception. NFP is a method of avoiding conception that the Catholic Church deems to be licit. For non-Catholics, there is no difference. While a well catechized Catholic should understand why the Church perceives a difference, Catholics that disagree with that teaching likely don’t see a difference, either.
I agree that many Catholics do not understand the difference between chastity, abstinence, continence and celibacy. That said, I think there are much bigger gaps in most people’s moral and ethical education than understanding the differences between these terms. Also, I don’t think knowing the correct technical term is necessary to understanding what is and is not moral behavior.
T
thistle
Guest
This seems quite appropriate. Let me quote St John of the Cross to you:
“Some souls suffer from another kind of spiritual anger. They watch over others with a kind of restless fervor, perpetually annoyed by the transgressions they perceive. The impulse arises to reprove the other souls in an angry way. Sometimes they even indulge this nasty urge, elevating themselves as masters of virtue. This is all contrary to spiritual meekness.”
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
You were going on about judging too.
Last edited:
G
goout
Guest
In the midst of all this, I have entertained the thought that maybe, just maybe, there is a potential development of doctrine (not change in teaching) regarding the reasons that are sufficient to use NFP. In all fairness, I have since reviewed Casti Connubii and I do not find any reference to “grave” or “serious” reasons. That may just have been understood by people at the time. Contraception had just recently become a “thing”. My own parents came from large (non-Catholic) families and were the last children to be born, several years after the others. In short, they were “oops babies”. I’m glad they were. Otherwise I wouldn’t be here!
But to return to the point, I’d like to quote this from Pope Pius XII:
The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful marriages. Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life.
Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to tile full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles. (Allocution to Italian midwives, 1951)
I have already quoted Humanae vitae and Paul VI’s reference to “serious” reasons, so I won’t belabor that here.
(continued in next post)
But to return to the point, I’d like to quote this from Pope Pius XII:
The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful marriages. Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life.
Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to tile full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles. (Allocution to Italian midwives, 1951)
I have already quoted Humanae vitae and Paul VI’s reference to “serious” reasons, so I won’t belabor that here.
(continued in next post)
(continued from previous post)
Could it be, then, that in modern societies here and there throughout the world, reasons do not have to be necessarily “grave” or “serious”, but merely “just”? Admittedly a very large family poses a financial burden in many societies (American society among these) that it did not pose in times past. On a farm, you need more hands. In the city, it takes far more to support those children. Our economy has “morphed” into this Leviathan where, sadly, the wife and mother must work in many cases. The cost of education has skyrocketed and many are burdened down with student loans (which I can’t recommend unless the graduate is very, very sure that they will “make the big bucks” upon graduation, and that is far from sure these days — witness people with master’s degrees working as Starbucks baristas and adult children having to move back home). I think, then, the question can fairly be asked “just how serious or grave do those motives have to be?”. Note I am only referring to NFP, not contraception. No motive, however worthy, can justify contraception, as it is an intrinsically evil means even if the end is morally acceptable.
As a practical matter, I’m just happy to see people using NFP instead of contraception.
Could it be, then, that in modern societies here and there throughout the world, reasons do not have to be necessarily “grave” or “serious”, but merely “just”? Admittedly a very large family poses a financial burden in many societies (American society among these) that it did not pose in times past. On a farm, you need more hands. In the city, it takes far more to support those children. Our economy has “morphed” into this Leviathan where, sadly, the wife and mother must work in many cases. The cost of education has skyrocketed and many are burdened down with student loans (which I can’t recommend unless the graduate is very, very sure that they will “make the big bucks” upon graduation, and that is far from sure these days — witness people with master’s degrees working as Starbucks baristas and adult children having to move back home). I think, then, the question can fairly be asked “just how serious or grave do those motives have to be?”. Note I am only referring to NFP, not contraception. No motive, however worthy, can justify contraception, as it is an intrinsically evil means even if the end is morally acceptable.
As a practical matter, I’m just happy to see people using NFP instead of contraception.
Last edited:
- Status