Contraception debate for irregular circumstances

[Bradski]

I’m not sure I understand you…Are you suggesting that the Pope is trying to tell non-Catholics to obey Catholic rules??

I would have no problem if the Pope said, for example: Gay Catholics must not marry. But if the Church actively works to try make sure that it is illegal for everyone, then it’s going to get some push-back.

 

[JRKH]

I would have no problem if the Pope said, for example: Gay Catholics must not marry. But if the Church actively works to try make sure that it is illegal for everyone, then it’s going to get some push-back.

I see…Thanks for clarifying…

If there is a contentious political issue there are bound to be two sides, those who favor and those who oppose. Most often the two sides are those who wish to change something and those who do not wish for the change.
Each side attempts to promote what they believe to be the correct view. They make speeches, write articles hold events etc.
In the United States of America, the issue is then settled at the ballot box or in congress and sometimes through the court system if there is a constitutional challenge…

So this is simply the way of democracy…I don’t see that “The Church”, i.e. those who agree with what the Church teaches, should be denied their constitutional rights to do any of the same things that others do…

The Pope, as well as our Bishops etc. have a duty to speak out on such matters in order to guide the faithful. These are perfectly legitimate actions within our democratic system of government. Indeed it is protected by our constitution.

So - Why do you have a problem with Catholics (who ARE the Church) acting properly on their conscience and in accord with the both the teaching of the Church AND the political process of our country?

There is an old saying that goes,
“I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.
I am prepared to defend your right to say that Gay marriage should be allowed. Are you prepared to defend my right to say that Gay marriage should not be allowed?

Peace
James

 

[Bradski]

be allowed?

Most definitely, James. Most definitely. I’d even support your right to not to have to have gay marriage performed in any of your churches, or anyone else’s church for that matter, of whatever religion.

However, if you’re going to argue on religious grounds, then as far as I’m concerned, those arguments should only affect those who follow that religion. This is a secular matter in that laws will be upheld or changed that will affect us all, so any arguments to change secular law must be secular in themselves.

It’s not valid to say that gay marriage is immoral, therefore it should not be allowed. As I’ve said earlier (in this thread?), the law doesn’t involve itself in morality per se.

I’ve looked at the matter from many angles, talking with people about this for some considerable time and I’ve come to the conclusion that there will be no detrimental effect if gay marriages are allowed. In fact, I’ve come to the conclusion that there will be benefits.

Are you and I different in this respect? Are you allowed to weigh the pros and conns of the debate and come to your own decision? As far as I am aware, if you’re a Catholic, then you have to abide by the church’s teachings on all matters – you can’t cherry pick those you’d like to follow and discard the rest. So unless I’m mistaken, you’re not allowed a ‘conscience vote’ on this.

 

[JRKH]

Excellent response…

Most definitely, James. Most definitely. I’d even support your right to not to have to have gay marriage performed in any of your churches, or anyone else’s church for that matter, of whatever religion.

An excellent point and I think a reasonable one.
Such reasoned approaches are good. Even the Church thinks so since at one point one of our bishops said that if they would call them “civil unions” instead of marriages the Church would have less of a problem with them…

However, if you’re going to argue on religious grounds, then as far as I’m concerned, those arguments should only affect those who follow that religion. This is a secular matter in that laws will be upheld or changed that will affect us all, so any arguments to change secular law must be secular in themselves.

I disagree that, where the individual conscience is concerned, we can or should separate the religious from the secular. And since the law will be changed (or not) based on the sum total of all of the individual consciences of the voting public and their elected representatives it’s impossible to keep religion - morality - completely out…

It’s not valid to say that gay marriage is immoral, therefore it should not be allowed. As I’ve said earlier (in this thread?), the law doesn’t involve itself in morality per se.

I’ve looked at the matter from many angles, talking with people about this for some considerable time and I’ve come to the conclusion that there will be no detrimental effect if gay marriages are allowed. In fact, I’ve come to the conclusion that there will be benefits.

Well - that is your view…mine is different - so you and I will cancel each other out at the polls…

Are you and I different in this respect? Are you allowed to weigh the pros and cons of the debate and come to your own decision? As far as I am aware, if you’re a Catholic, then you have to abide by the church’s teachings on all matters – you can’t cherry pick those you’d like to follow and discard the rest. So unless I’m mistaken, you’re not allowed a ‘conscience vote’ on this.

No - we are not different in this regard…because no one forces me to be Catholic. As a free person, I freely choose to associate myself with this Church and I freely accept, after careful consideration, that her teachings as correct.
Further - even within the Church and after careful study on a given issue, I am free to follow my “well formed” conscience. That fact is incorporated in the Catechism.

Peace
James

 

[Bradski]

Further - even within the Church and after careful study on a given issue, I am free to follow my “well formed” conscience. That fact is incorporated in the Catechism.

Is that sensus fidelium? Why don’t more people claim that in these circumstances?

 

[JRKH]

Is that sensus fidelium?

Excuse my ignorance but I’m not sure what you mean by sensus fidelium…
This matter of conscience is dealt with in the Catechism HERE

Why don’t more people claim that in these circumstances?

Now you ask a very complex question and one that is hotly debated from time to time.
Some will say that far too many DO claim this but only as an excuse since they have not first properly formed their conscience.
And that is really the key…
For the Catholic, the default position needs to be that the Church teaching is correct. This only makes sense since, by freely choosing to be Catholic, I choose that Christ’s authority over me is exercised through His Catholic Church. So - if there is a subject or topic that I have not studied, it only makes sense that I defer to those who have studied the matter and who I trust as being guided by the Holy Spirit.

If I come to some teaching that deeply troubles me…or if I have a particular personal situation, or spiritual crisis that I am trying to deal with then my first duty is to study on the matter. To learn not just what the Church teaches but, to the best of my ability, why she teaches this. Prayer is also a large part of this as one seeks God’s will in a given matter. This is all part of building a “Well formed conscience”. If, after doing all of this, I find myself still conflicted, I am free to act on my conscience.

Now - here is a very important aspect of this that is often overlooked or ignored by those who try to invoke the “conscience clause”…
Acting in one’s well formed conscience (where it in some way conflicts with the “letter of the law”) is a private matter and must remain so…Private between ones self, God, and one’s spiritual adviser/confessor and possibly spouse. It is NOT I repeat NOT something to be broadcast. It is not a license to teach others in way contrary to Church teaching. So - using the example of Same Sex marriage, if I came to the conclusion, after careful study, that I should vote in favor of it’s being legalized…I would not be permitted (on my conscience) to advise other Catholics to do likewise.

Not sure If I’ve explained this well…but I hope this helps you some…

Peace
James

 

[edwest2]

I would have no problem if the Pope said, for example: Gay Catholics must not marry. But if the Church actively works to try make sure that it is illegal for everyone, then it’s going to get some push-back.

The “push-back” you refer to is based on what? Why do gays need my permission at the ballot box to live how they want? “illegal for everyone”? Like who is the everyone?

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

So what is the law founded on? There are those that claim it has no basis in religion. I think Catholics and non-Catholics need to realize that most laws are based on and reflective of religious morality and religious concepts of right and wrong.

From the Farewell Address of George Washington - 1796

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

And here is a quote where I will substitute one word with two others:

“What we want, and all we want, is to have with us the men who think gay marriage wrong. But those who say they hate gay marriage, and are opposed to it, but yet act with the Democratic party – where are they? Let us apply a few tests. You say that you think gay marriage is wrong, but you denounce all attempts to restrain it. Is there anything else that you think wrong, that you are not willing to deal with as a wrong? Why are you so careful, so tender of this one wrong and no other? You will not let us do a single thing as if it was wrong; there is no place where you will allow it to be even called wrong! We must not call it wrong in the Free States, because it is not there, and we must not call it wrong in the Slave States because it is there; we must not call it wrong in politics because that is bringing morality into politics, and we must not call it wrong in the pulpit because that is bringing politics into religion; we must not bring it into the Tract Society or the other societies, because those are such unsuitable places, and there is no single place, according to you, where this wrong thing can properly be called wrong!”

• Abraham Lincoln, Speech at New Haven

The word that was replaced was “slavery.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[Bezant]

The point is you can disagree without being intentionally offensive, especially when you are new to a forum, and especially when it has been brought to your attention. You haven’t even had a chance to learn the forum rules/dynamics yet.

Sensible advice.

 

[Joe_5859]

There is only one me…

Peace
James

Indeed!

Although, if there were two of you sharing the same account, that would explain how you’ve racked up so many posts.

I find it somewhat amusing that someone would think you’re trying to offer people a free pass on circumventing Catholic teaching. They must not have seen many of your posts!

Anyway, back on topic. People never stop appealing to the hard cases. If the argument becomes emotional, it becomes more difficult to give straight answers.

I would definitely encourage anyone in an irregular circumstance to seek the counsel of a priest and an NFP specialist. There are several methods of NFP and there are many people out there who can help people who find themselves in these difficult situations.

Personally, if my wife’s very life was on the line, I cannot imagine being content to use contraception and hope that it works. No way would I take that chance.

 

[JRKH]

The point is you can disagree without being intentionally offensive, especially when you are new to a forum, and especially when it has been brought to your attention. You haven’t even had a chance to learn the forum rules/dynamics yet.

Sensible advice.

Indeed!

Although, if there were two of you sharing the same account, that would explain how you’ve racked up so many posts.

I find it somewhat amusing that someone would think you’re trying to offer people a free pass on circumventing Catholic teaching. They must not have seen many of your posts!

I am humbled by the support fellas…Thanks a lot.
One thing that struck me about his last comment - that there must be two of me - is that there was really nothing contradictory in the posts of mine that he was trying to compare…

Anyway, back on topic. People never stop appealing to the hard cases. If the argument becomes emotional, it becomes more difficult to give straight answers.

True - but it is the “hard cases” that can have no “clear cut” answers…
What is most troubling to me is the view of some that “the law is the law” period…One of the things that Jesus spoke of, by both word and action, was including mercy - Love - into all of the calculations. When difficult cases come up is when we most especially need the advice of a good priest.

I would definitely encourage anyone in an irregular circumstance to seek the counsel of a priest and an NFP specialist. There are several methods of NFP and there are many people out there who can help people who find themselves in these difficult situations.

Personally, if my wife’s very life was on the line, I cannot imagine being content to use contraception and hope that it works. No way would I take that chance.

Amen

Peace
James

 

[Bradski]

Now - here is a very important aspect of this that is often overlooked or ignored by those who try to invoke the “conscience clause”…
Acting in one’s well formed conscience (where it in some way conflicts with the “letter of the law”) is a private matter and must remain so…Private between ones self, God, and one’s spiritual adviser/confessor and possibly spouse. It is NOT I repeat NOT something to be broadcast. It is not a license to teach others in way contrary to Church teaching. So - using the example of Same Sex marriage, if I came to the conclusion, after careful study, that I should vote in favor of it’s being legalized…I would not be permitted (on my conscience) to advise other Catholics to do likewise.

A good explanation. Thanks. I wasn’t aware of the fact that it was a private matter and not one that you could use to ‘convert’ others to your view.

It seems different to sensus fidelium which is described as such: catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=39217

The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium) issued at Vatican II said this about sensus fidelium in section 12:

“The holy people of God shares also in Christ’s prophetic office; it spreads abroad a living witness to Him, especially by means of a life of faith and charity and by offering to God a sacrifice of praise, the tribute of lips which give praise to His name (cf. Heb. 13:15). The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, (cf. 1 Jn. 2:20, 27) cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples’ supernatural discernment in matters of faith when from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth. It is exercised under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority, in faithful and respectful obedience to which the people of God accepts that which is not just the word of men but truly the word of God (cf. 1 Th. 2:13).”

It seems to include everyone in the Catholic faith down to the ‘last of the lay people’ in discerning matters of faith. Which leads me to ask, if in a matter such as contraception, where so many Catholics ignore the church’s teaching, wouldn’t this concept apply?

 

[davidv]

A good explanation. Thanks. I wasn’t aware of the fact that it was a private matter and not one that you could use to ‘convert’ others to your view.

It seems different to sensus fidelium which is described as such: catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=39217

The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium) issued at Vatican II said this about sensus fidelium in section 12:

“The holy people of God shares also in Christ’s prophetic office; it spreads abroad a living witness to Him, especially by means of a life of faith and charity and by offering to God a sacrifice of praise, the tribute of lips which give praise to His name (cf. Heb. 13:15). The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, (cf. 1 Jn. 2:20, 27) cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples’ supernatural discernment in matters of faith when from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth. It is exercised under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority, in faithful and respectful obedience to which the people of God accepts that which is not just the word of men but truly the word of God (cf. 1 Th. 2:13).”

It seems to include everyone in the Catholic faith down to the ‘last of the lay people’ in discerning matters of faith. Which leads me to ask, if in a matter such as contraception, where so many Catholics ignore the church’s teaching, wouldn’t this concept apply?

No, because the truth is always true even if no one believes it. The teaching against contraception is settled doctrine. Sensus fidelium is not popular opinion and cannot contradict established truths.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Creepy, creepy.

Huh? How was his advice creepy in ANY way shape or form?

I don’t get it.

 

[JRKH]

No, because the truth is always true even if no one believes it. The teaching against contraception is settled doctrine. Sensus fidelium is not popular opinion and cannot contradict established truths.

This…

There needs to be a recognition of the difference between “ignor(ing) he church’s teaching” and, as expressed in Lumen Gentium…
That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth. It is exercised under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority, in faithful and respectful obedience to which the people of God accepts that which is not just the word of men but truly the word of God

If you consider the explanation I gave, (and having not read Lumen Gentium on this matter), you can see that both are speaking of the same thing…Of careful examination and study, of seeking to form one’s conscience firmly in the Spirit of Truth and under the Authority of God’s Holy Church.

Peace
James

 

[Nate13]

However, if you’re going to argue on religious grounds, then as far as I’m concerned, those arguments should only affect those who follow that religion. This is a secular matter in that laws will be upheld or changed that will affect us all, so any arguments to change secular law must be secular in themselves.

Let me reply to this. The Church’s position on gay marriage is based in the natural moral law. Natural law is a philosophy of life and how the World works, not a religion. You have a philosophy of life that says gay marriage should be permitted. In other words you believe the love between two gay people is equal to the love between a husband and wife. If you don’t believe they are equal then I have to wonder why you believe they should be treated equally. Anyways, my question for you then is why should your philosophy of life override mine in the public square? The Church teaches that all of its teachings are based in reason. If reason is not welcome in the public square what is?

natural law
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a1.htm