Contraception Debate

[milkbar]

Also, I find a faulty premise re: the book you linked to. It might be an interesting read IF it actually mattered how the Pope arrives at his decisions. But it doesn’t. The Pope wil always seek the counsel of others in large matters, but he is not bound to abide by their wishes. He is bound instead by the Holy Spirit, Who leads him unfailingly.

No matter who said what on the way to Humanae Vitae, the teaching contained within it is binding on all Catholics. If you have a problem with Church authority, you have a crisis of faith, for you cannot trust the Church to be correct about anything if it is not correct about everything. The second the Church teaches moral error, you would know the Holy Spirit is not present, and your Bible would be meaningless.

 

[BruceK]

Thank you milkbar and BruceK for your posts.

I think we are right at the verge of where this debate starts to go in circles, arguments are intentionally misunderstood or, more often, ignored and where any weakness in delivering a point is pounced on to discredit other clear, valid and important reasoning.
As long you’re intellectually honest to admit your part in this then we should have no problem proceding with an honest and fruitful debate.

Interesting how the ABC debate is now right where it belongs: its about Church authority - its not about contraception in light of scripture, tradition or nature.
At least this debate anyway.
Divine guidance (Holy Spirit) is on tap to the Pope only on certain issues (faith and morals) and in certain ways (ex cathedra and a few other ways). There is context and requirements and a whole lot of mitigating factors that can come into play.

When it comes to ABC and Church authority, we have a very public, unique and highly relevant case of flagrant disregard of counsel and mischievous deceitful manipulation within the Curia. I recommend the book “The Turning Point”, if you are interested in knowing the incredible story of how this all went down.
I read the book “Turning Point” and well aware of all its false premises and biases.

I had to look up the word “dichotomy” to find out what it means.

*dichotomy /dʌɪˈkɒtəmi, dɪ-/
:arrow_forward:noun (pl. dichotomies)
* 1 a division or contrast between two things that are opposed or entirely different. *

Just to clarify… markxcool hereby affirms that there is no inherent conflict between religion and science, faith and reason or spirituality and reality.

Now I hereby reiterate that no one, that no Catholic, is required to accept an “I told you so, so do it” order from Church authority. Guidance, Dogma and Doctrine MUST be accompanied - and almost always is! - by reasons, explanations and logic.

In the case of the Church’s ABC policy, all the reasons, explanations and logic mustered by Church experts on the issue was in favour of ABC and only after an arbitrary decision to the contrary do we see, and continue to see, attempts to explain away their decision.

Finally, a Church policy that has never been accepted by the body of Church faithful cannot be considered ex cathedra, infallible or from the Holy Spirit. The Church of God is not a dictatorship… one of the Pope’s titles is, beautifully and meaningfully… Servant of the Servant’s of God.

Just like the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was made a reality because of the ground-swell support for it from the Catholic World, so too does acceptance of Church teaching have a close correlation to their validity.

Please don’t start with the “Church is not a democracy” rehash. Its neither a democracy nor a dictatorship… its the Church of God with very unique rules and circumstances. Lets appreciate this.

Alright lets take your logic a step further. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity would not considered an infallible teaching because during much of the 4th century the majority of christian bishops, clergy and laity pretty much embraced the teachings of Arianism. The same would also be said about the Real Presence in the Eucharist because when Jesus said in no uncertan terms he was the “bread of life” the majoritry of people there(including his disciples) could not accept this “hard saying” John 6: 31-67. Now up till at least 125 years ago the overwhelming majority of Catholics(and other Christians) supported the ban against contraception. So are we assume by your reasoning that an infallible teaching or doctrine ceases to so simply because the majority ceases to believe in it or abide by it? And is Holy Spirit constrained by the whims of the majority?

 

[markxcool]

1. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. (…) if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute,** it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.**

Thank you, milkbar, for locating one of the places where the Church tells its faithful to ‘shut up and sit down’. Again, gone are the days where the Pope can impose totalitarian decrees on a modern, educated and a discerning Church… case in point, only 2% of Catholic faithful actually heed HV.

BruceK…Alright lets take your logic a step further. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity would not considered an infallible teaching because during much of the 4th century the majority of christian bishops, clergy and laity pretty much embraced the teachings of Arianism. The same would also be said about the Real Presence in the Eucharist because when Jesus said in no uncertan terms he was the “bread of life” the majoritry of people there(including his disciples) could not accept this “hard saying” John 6: 31-67. Now up till at least 125 years ago the overwhelming majority of Catholics(and other Christians) supported the ban against contraception. So are we assume by your reasoning that an infallible teaching or doctrine ceases to so simply because the majority ceases to believe in it or abide by it? And is Holy Spirit constrained by the whims of the majority?

My logic? Don’t forget that I’m not the source of objects to HV teaching. If you find my logic fault - I personally am guilty as charged. Thankfully, the points I attempt to deliver and explain here are all from the Papal Commission on Birth Control, so please remember that you are arguing with the most learned and Church specialists who started studying this issue with your same beliefs and - since they were not told to ‘shut up and sit down’ though logic, study and honesty concluded that ABC was acceptable.

BruceKI read the book “Turning Point” and well aware of all its false premises and biases.

My foot! Please tell me where I can read a more personal, detailed, frank and thorough relation of what happened that demonstrates how “The Turning Point” has false premises and bias. And please don’t dump truck loads of vaguely related pontifical documents on me that is the classic way of making the issue so complicated that people just wander off.

This issue should ideally be explained with ‘short and sweet’ explanations. This is particularly hard for pro HV (anti ABC) folks because they only way they can really make a case is by overwhelming those who differ with so many lofty, symbolic and hard to follow considerations that it gets tiring.

Example of ‘short and sweet’: “Marriage must be open to bearing children - not every single sex act in it” - this conclusion of the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control rings true and sounds so logical to essentially everyone… except those who willfully want to get caught up in long-winded, arbitrary justifications to the contrary.

Also, I find a faulty premise re: the book you linked to. It might be an interesting read IF it actually mattered how the Pope arrives at his decisions. But it doesn’t. The Pope wil always seek the counsel of others in large matters, but he is not bound to abide by their wishes. He is bound instead by the Holy Spirit, Who leads him unfailingly.

[1]No matter who said what on the way to HV, the teaching contained within it is binding on all Catholics.[2] If you have a problem with Church authority, you have a crisis of faith, [3] for you cannot trust the Church to be correct about anything if it is not correct about everything. The second the Church teaches moral error, you would know the Holy Spirit is not present, and your Bible would be meaningless.

**[1]98% of Catholics and the Church specialist tasked with the matter and the essentially all bishops and confessors and parish priests of the world DISAGREE. Yeah, go ahead and call them all not Catholic and ignore what this might signify.[2]I’ve already mentioned that Faith means in God; not for Church authority. You seem to think that at baptism we a given the gifts of Faith in Church Authority, Hope and Charity.[3]**Thankfully, not everyone sees such a dire consequence of acknowledging that a mistake was made with HV. You shouldn’t either.

 

[markxcool]

First of all, the sensus fidelium are not those who dissent or reject some of the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Yeah, the sensus fidelium (the belief amongst the faithful) are the 2% who think that to disagree with a Pope means all is lost. Not the 98% who disagree with the Pope. 2% is the clear majority.

Second, the Papal Commission on Birth Control was not part of the Magisterium of the Church. So your assertion “A decision ignored by 98% percent of Catholic faithful… which has to count for something!” would only count for something if you’re willing to concede that the argumentive fallacy Argumentum as Populum or bandwagaon fallacy is a valid way of determing and uholding absolute truth.

Yeah, and preparing a meal has nothing to do with the meal itself. Especially if all that was prepared (Commissions conclusions) was dumped in the garbage and the Pope ordered pizza instead(HV).

Third, there is nothing in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and natural law to suggest the that artificial brith control (ABC) is morally acceptable. To try to pretend otherwise is almost blasphemous.

Yeah, the 74 multidisciplinary Church specialists that said ABC is morally acceptable are all ‘almost blasphemous’. Wonder why the Minority Report could only argue Church authority and not that it was almost blasphemous…maybe because affirming so didn’t make any sense.

The 4 “dissenters” on that Commission were not dissenters against the Church and its teachings. I admit the dissenting report could have been more nuanced and compelling in its arguments; Fr. Ford S.J. clearly dropped the ball on this one.

The conclusions of the Commission were presented as fully acceptable and in accordance with Church Teaching… Are we going to call all the Commission members dissenters? Make the call! Whomever gets to write history has the luxury. Those who dig deeper are often surprised.

The fact of the matter is Un til the early part of the 20th century virtually all of Christianity and Judaism were steadfastly against ABC, which should tell you something.

Yes, it does tell me something. Thanks for bringing this up. Even more to your point, most* civil** governments also outlawed contraception* under pain of criminal penalty (not just sin!), and they have nothing to do with religion. So clearly, “virtually all” of this anti-ABC positions were a reflection of the culture of the time, they were not rooted in any Divine Will carried out by civil and religions government bodies combined. Its as simple as that.

The Church’s stance against ABC was not declared infallible “Ex Cathedra” but it does, never-the-less, fulfill the criteria of an infallible teaching.

Major point this one. It would be a major FAIL to consider it so for so many reasons, not the least of which is the highly troubling way it was brought into Church Teaching (hijacked), added to the fact that the vast majority of Church government and Church faithful don’t hold it to be so… Believing so is like Nero playing his harp as Rome burns.

Our Lord and Saviour Jesus said, “You shall know them by their fruits.” Many of the mainline protestsant churches and denominatons that have since allowed ABC have subsequently allowed openly gay members of the clergy, blessing of same-sex unions, legalising same-sex marriages,and in some cases condoning abortion under certain circumstances. Coincidence? I think not.

So I guess we can also conclude that 98% of Catholics (including the majority of clergy), since they accept ABC, also are open to gay Catholic clergy, same sex unions, condoning abortion? I think not. And if there are any who do condone such things, its not because of ABC, but the continuing colossal inability of Rome to educate, maintain cohesion and inspire the flock. Some say this started with its arbitrary decision on ABC.

It should also be pointed out that the rate of cohabitation,break-up and divorce is over 50% among Catholics who practice ABC whereas those who practice NFP is less than 5%.

This argument counts for nothing when you recognize that those who practice NFP, from the get-go, are more conservative, scrupulous, appearance-concerned and spirituality-driven to begin with. Excuse the apparent ‘labellings’ (surely they are not all the same), but lets be honest about this. Sorry to make this about me for a second, but I grew up in such circles with the Latin Mass, Home Schooling, girls in modest dresses, daily family prayer, weekly confession, etc., etc., and, believe me, there was a great deal more of infidelity, pornography addiction, drinking and other sins they anyone in that esteemed crowd would ever let anyone believe.

Finally, at the end of the day it comes down to authority. I think Jesus was very clear and unequivical when he stated, " whetever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Matt.ch.16
“He that hears you, hears me.” Luke 10

You betcha! Hence the ability and need for the Church to say… a mistake was made and implement the recommendations of their very own Commission of Birth Control, even if it takes the Pope 500 years to do it. The longer it takes the hard it will be, but the CHURCH HAS THE POWER to make the call: whetever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Matt.ch.16 Jesus did not say in this phrase that the Church was immune to personal pontifical mistakes, nor that it could not change its policy… as a matter of fact, this phrase sounds like a pope has the power to correct another pope’s mistake! Thank you, Lord!

My only question to you is what part of that do oyu have trouble understanding?

You will see by my comments to each of your points. Oremus!

 

[milkbar]

Thank you, milkbar, for locating one of the places where the Church tells its faithful to ‘shut up and sit down’.

I think you’ll find quite a few places in the Bible where God does the same thing.

And again I say, if you have a problem with Church authority, you have a crisis of faith.

And again I ask, why are you Catholic?

 

[milkbar]

Hence the ability and need for the Church to say… a mistake was made and implement the recommendations of their very own Commission of Birth Control, even if it takes the Pope 500 years to do it. The longer it takes the hard it will be, but the CHURCH HAS THE POWER to make the call: whetever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Matt.ch.16 Jesus did not say in this phrase that the Church was immune to personal pontifical mistakes, nor that it could not change its policy… as a matter of fact, this phrase sounds like a pope has the power to correct another pope’s mistake!

The Pope cannot teach moral error.

The Pope has the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

If you don’t believe that, why are you Catholic?

I keep asking you that, but I want you to understand that I’m not suggesting you ought to belong to some other church. You need to be prepared to give a defense of your faith. And you can’t defend the Church very well if you believe it has taught moral error. If you do not believe the Church has the perfect guidance of the Holy Spirit, you must have some other reason for being Catholic. Not to mention, you could walk into any old Protestant church and receive crackers and grape juice and get the same thing you’re getting during communion in your Catholic Church if you can’t trust the Church to be teaching the truth when she teaches that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. This is all absolutely interconnected. The Church cannot teach error; if it does, even one time, even on this one thing, then you have no reason to be Catholic, because the Church therefore would not have the guidance of the Holy Spirit.