Contraception hypothetical

[Timbothefiveth]

Actually, there is a sin that involved misuse of food. It’s called gluttony. Why is contraception not a sin if misusing that is?

 

[tjm190]

Gluttony= too much food
Contraception≠ too much sex

 

[newbetx]

Gluttony= too much food
Contraception≠ too much sex

In a way, it is… but I’m sure you think there can be no such thing as “too much sex.” There can not be a thing as too much love. But love and sex, while intertwined, are not equivalent.

now granted, the teaching against contraception isn’t the most obvious thing from first examining Natural Law. The teaching against contraception requires you to follow many many fine points and distinctions to a seemingly strange conclusion. I think the best thing is just to accept it on authority.

Hmm… “It’s complicated, just take our word for it” vs. “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense , reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”

I choose the latter

What Tosk is telling you is that you have to make a journey of understanding to be able to comprehend the teaching. Also, if you don’t wish to take the journey, you may take it on faith.

I’ve told you the same thing. So far you have rejected both. Your choice, of course.

You seem to think that we have to prove something to you. Well, we don’t. We’re having these discussions because we wish for you to understand. We don’t have to prove anything to you.

But on the side… how are those MP3’s?

 

[newbetx]

Given that Catholic bishops have openly challenged the church’s position on ABC I think I’ll be fine- therosarium.ca/indextemps/winnipeg.html

Better think again. They backpedaled.
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/08092903.html

 

[tjm190]

In a way, it is… but I’m sure you think there can be no such thing as “too much sex.” There can not be a thing as too much love. But love and sex, while intertwined, are not equivalent.

One sexual act with contraception is still one sexual act. Of course there can be too much sense, in both a physical and emotional sense. Contraception may be a tool allowing for too much sex, but that does make the use of contraception equivalent to too much sex.

What Tosk is telling you is that you have to make a journey of understanding to be able to comprehend the teaching. Also, if you don’t wish to take the journey, you may take it on faith.

I’ve told you the same thing. So far you have rejected both. Your choice, of course.

Because I haven’t encountered a belief that requires such pomp and circumstance- “all of it none of it”? “journey”? Any objection to natural law should be able to expressed logically in a concise manner.

You seem to think that we have to prove something to you. Well, we don’t. We’re having these discussions because we wish for you to understand. We don’t have to prove anything to you.

But on the side… how are those MP3’s?

You have no need to prove anything to me of course- you have nothing to gain by doing so, nor are you obligated by prior commitment. But as a general rule, when you make a claim you should be prepared to back it up.

Got through the second one- I believe I can see where it’s going and I’m sorry to say that I had a disagreement. He talks about what the “language of the body” is saying during the sexual act- of course, the body already has two languages: hormones for communication within itself and emotions for communication with each other (more or less)- and neither of them support his claim. Waiting for an opportunity to continue…

 

[tjm190]

Better think again. They backpedaled.
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/08092903.html

Really? The very same bishops or their successors?

 

[newbetx]

One sexual act with contraception is still one sexual act. Of course there can be too much sense, in both a physical and emotional sense. Contraception may be a tool allowing for too much sex, but that does make the use of contraception equivalent to too much sex.

Yep, just like eating just one Snickers bar… Or a Strawberry Milkshake. We don’t have just one, do we. Over time, the calories add up… But the food/sex analogy can only go so far.

Because I haven’t encountered a belief that requires such pomp and circumstance- “all of it none of it”? “journey”? Any objection to natural law should be able to expressed logically in a concise manner.

Well it may seem a bit over the top to you at this point… and I might say I thought the same thing once. The logical process is very long. That is why I say we can’t do that in a few forum discourses. It takes the whole thing before it all comes together. It’s more than an answer. It’s more like an ecosystem. Like: Why does a particular species exist? It’s not enough to just say "for food for another species. It’s much more complex than that.

You have no need to prove anything to me of course- you have nothing to gain by doing so, nor are you obligated by prior commitment. But as a general rule, when you make a claim you should be prepared to back it up.

I told you why I could not specifically give you the quick and easy answer. I have been trying to back it up. but I don’t want to recreate the whole TOB just for you.

And we all lose something when someone does not believe. So as long as you are willing to listen, we’re willing to try.

Got through the second one- I believe I can see where it’s going and I’m sorry to say that I had a disagreement. He talks about what the “language of the body” is saying during the sexual act- of course, the body already has two languages: hormones for communication within itself and emotions for communication with each other (more or less)- and neither of them support his claim. Waiting for an opportunity to continue…

Again. Riccardo or Altier?

I have to agree that there is a language of the body. What you do can and will communicate something to someone. Men use it. Women use it. While sex may be just an act of the moment for you, it may not be to the one you acted with. Many a woman thought the man (can be reversed) was interested in marriage since they had sex. However, he wasn’t. What you do with your body does send a message. Even if you didn’t mean it to. As humans we’re real good at getting what we want without committing ourselves or our resources.

I don’t know if you can continue the course if you think that thing about the language of the body is not true. But please. Keep a list. It may help us explain it to you. Of course context would help. So let me know which MP3 you are listening to and I’ll go back and listen again to get the context and we can discuss.

 

[kage_ar]

Really? The very same bishops or their successors?

You could use this site to determine which Bishops were involved in each.

catholic-hierarchy.org/

 

[newbetx]

Really? The very same bishops or their successors?

So what are you saying here? The first set was right and the second are wrong? There’s a 40 year gap… not sure how many of the original Bishops are still around.

Oh, and one of the key things associated with this letter is the acknowledgment of JP II for TOB. When the original bishop’s letter was released, TOB hadn’t been documented yet. Maybe the bishops read it and came to believe?

 

[gardenswithkids]

…Got through the second one- I believe I can see where it’s going and I’m sorry to say that I had a disagreement. He talks about what the “language of the body” is saying during the sexual act- of course, the body already has two languages: hormones for communication within itself and emotions for communication with each other (more or less)- and neither of them support his claim…

Do you remember the Sea Witch, Ursula, in Disney’s Little Mermaid? She reminded Ariel not to underestimate the importance of “Body Language.” While her motives were bad, that advice wasn’t. Disney, Ursula and common sense tell us that we communicate beyond just words to each other by using our bodies. The Church understands the importance of “body language” too.

Sometimes we say things with our bodies that we don’t intend to convey. Our bodies send accurate messages to other people that we may rather wish they not know. (Think about how lie detectors work; not 100% accurate, but they give some indication.) It may be someone’s cold so they cross their arms, but body language 'experts" say that typically crossed arms indicates someone is defensive or closed off. If you google “reading body language”, you’ll find a whole host of “experts” willing to tell you what certain actions indicate. People don’t always know what message they send off through their body language, but the experts can help us understand. The Church has experts in theology who can translate for us what certain body actions “say.”

Back to theology of the body. Some people think this is “new.” It’s quite old and it fits into the rest of Catholic Theology. God gave us both a soul and a body. The Catholic Church recognizes the importance of the physical. Our Sacraments and worship are physical experiences as well a spiritual experiences. Touch the Holy Water, smell the incense, genuflect, make the sign of the cross. “Taste and see the goodness of the Lord!” These are physical experiences that we do with our body. Jesus used “body language” too, giving us His Body in Holy Communion at the Mass. “This is My body which has been given up for you.”

 

[tjm190]

Do you remember the Sea Witch, Ursula, in Disney’s Little Mermaid? She reminded Ariel not to underestimate the importance of “Body Language.” While her motives were bad, that advice wasn’t. Disney, Ursula and common sense tell us that we communicate beyond just words to each other by using our bodies. The Church understands the importance of “body language” too.

…Body language is well understood also. I don’t think the priest giving the lectures is qualified to interpret them.

Sometimes we say things with our bodies that we don’t intend to convey. Our bodies send accurate messages to other people that we may rather wish they not know. (Think about how lie detectors work; not 100% accurate, but they give some indication.) It may be someone’s cold so they cross their arms, but body language 'experts" say that typically crossed arms indicates someone is defensive or closed off. If you google “reading body language”, you’ll find a whole host of “experts” willing to tell you what certain actions indicate. People don’t always know what message they send off through their body language, but the experts can help us understand. The Church has experts in theology who can translate for us what certain body actions “say.”

An expert in theology is no more qualified to interpret body language then an expert in body language is to talk about theology. And actual body linguists (is that a real term?) would not generalize an act that can vary so much as the speaker does- like “every sexual act says ‘I give myself completely to you’.”

Back to theology of the body. Some people think this is “new.” It’s quite old and it fits into the rest of Catholic Theology. God gave us both a soul and a body. The Catholic Church recognizes the importance of the physical. Our Sacraments and worship are physical experiences as well a spiritual experiences. Touch the Holy Water, smell the incense, genuflect, make the sign of the cross. “Taste and see the goodness of the Lord!” These are physical experiences that we do with our body. Jesus used “body language” too, giving us His Body in Holy Communion at the Mass. “This is My body which has been given up for you.”

… I think you’re stretching the limits of body language there.

 

[tjm190]

So what are you saying here? The first set was right and the second are wrong? There’s a 40 year gap… not sure how many of the original Bishops are still around.

Oh, and one of the key things associated with this letter is the acknowledgment of JP II for TOB. When the original bishop’s letter was released, TOB hadn’t been documented yet. Maybe the bishops read it and came to believe?

I’m not saying one is right and one is wrong, I’m just saying I don’t believe the fact that the majority of the first group is no longer active invalidates their opinions. And if that were so, they would have retracted their statement, and their successors wouldn’t have had to.

 

[newbetx]

.
…Body language is well understood also. I don’t think the priest giving the lectures is qualified to interpret them.

How can you say that Body language is well understood but a priest can’t understand it?

In Fr. Riccardo’s “The Four Goods of Marriage” he explains. He and many other priests spend much of their time counseling married couples. The reasons priests (rabbi’s, too I presume) know so much about the perils of marriage is their constant exposure to the problems that couples and families face. I use to think those celibate men had no clue. I was very wrong. You don’t have to be married to understand the problems (and their sources) for married couples.

.
“every sexual act says ‘I give myself completely to you’.”

It doesn’t. The question really is, “shouldn’t it?” TOB will tell you it should because anything else isn’t love.

.
An expert in theology is no more qualified to interpret body language then an expert in body language is to talk about theology. And actual body linguists (is that a real term?) would not generalize an act that can vary so much as the speaker does- like “every sexual act says ‘I give myself completely to you’.”

OK. I’ll bite. Can you produce a job description for a “body linguist” or who ever you think is qualified to understand body language?

 

[tjm190]

How can you say that Body language is well understood but a priest can’t understand it?

I meant well understood as in there is a sophisticated field of study surrounding it- like just because a certain aspect of physics is well understood doesn’t mean everybody can understand it with no training.

In Fr. Riccardo’s “The Four Goods of Marriage” he explains. He and many other priests spend much of their time counseling married couples. The reasons priests (rabbi’s, too I presume) know so much about the perils of marriage is their constant exposure to the problems that couples and families face. I use to think those celibate men had no clue. I was very wrong. You don’t have to be married to understand the problems (and their sources) for married couples.

Again, his counseling doesn’t qualify him to pronounce “what the sexual act says”

It doesn’t. The question really is, “shouldn’t it?” TOB will tell you it should because anything else isn’t love.

Not what he said, but I’ll press onward next time I find myself with a free 35 or so minutes.

OK. I’ll bite. Can you produce a job description for a “body linguist” or who ever you think is qualified to understand body language?

An expert in the field of body language- when there are people who study a field it seems silly that someone with no experience allots him self the power to make claims in that field.

 

[newbetx]

I’m not saying one is right and one is wrong, I’m just saying I don’t believe the fact that the majority of the first group is no longer active invalidates their opinions. And if that were so, they would have retracted their statement, and their successors wouldn’t have had to.

So you think that Bishops are any less human than anyone else? Everyone has an opinion. It may be right, it may be wrong. No one can invalidate someone’s opinion. We can’t invalidate yours. But that doesn’t make it correct.
From Wiki: An opinion is a belief that may or may not be backed up with evidence, but which cannot be proved with that evidence. It is normally a subjective statement and may be the result of an emotion or an interpretation of facts; people may draw opposing opinions from the same facts.

One group has to be right and the other wrong. Like us and you. One is right and one is wrong. It can’t be both ways. The Church (and many of us) say contraception is always wrong and you say otherwise. One group is right and the other is wrong. In a way, you claim that a small group of men were right in their opinion because it matches yours. Not a very scientific conclusion, is it? Just because a majority of people at one time believed the universe revolved around the Earth, did not make it so.

The verbage in the more recent letter is very telling. It talks about TOB. (No, the content of TOB is not new. It’s scriptural. It’s presentation and interpretation is new.) It talks about Humane Vitae as a prophetic document (which is hard to disagree with) and it promotes returning to the church teachings.

So why did the Bishops of Canada change their position? Because some younger guys want to suck up to a dead Pope? Don’t think so. It’s good old 20/20 hindsight.

Now many of us had to learn the hard way that our current 20/20 hindsight is correct and our youthful myopia was wrong.

 

[newbetx]

Again, his counseling doesn’t qualify him to pronounce “what the sexual act says”

Well, I can tell you he didn’t make that up.

Gotta side question for you… if you don’t mind. What does the sexual act mean or imply to you?

 

[tjm190]

So you think that Bishops are any less human than anyone else? Everyone has an opinion. It may be right, it may be wrong. No one can invalidate someone’s opinion. We can’t invalidate yours. But that doesn’t make it correct.
From Wiki: An opinion is a belief that may or may not be backed up with evidence, but which cannot be proved with that evidence. It is normally a subjective statement and may be the result of an emotion or an interpretation of facts; people may draw opposing opinions from the same facts.

… you seem to have forgotten how this came up. Someone stated that my view on contraception was so contrary to the Catholic church’s that it required my leaving it- as a result i showed how several bishops, successors of the apostles, held similar beliefs. I say beliefs rather than opinions, because opinions are strictly subjective- the logical process of noncontradiction, which you are about to employ, does not hold for opinions.

One group has to be right and the other wrong. Like us and you. One is right and one is wrong. It can’t be both ways. The Church (and many of us) say contraception is always wrong and you say otherwise. One group is right and the other is wrong. In a way, you claim that a small group of men were right in their opinion because it matches yours. Not a very scientific conclusion, is it? Just because a majority of people at one time believed the universe revolved around the Earth, did not make it so.

I never, ever, ever, even implied they were correct. All I meant to convey was that the successors of the apostles are quite capable of breaking with this particular teaching- why should partitioners be held to a higher standard of obedience?

The verbage in the more recent letter is very telling. It talks about TOB. (No, the content of TOB is not new. It’s scriptural. It’s presentation and interpretation is new.) It talks about Humane Vitae as a prophetic document (which is hard to disagree with) and it promotes returning to the church teachings.

Surprise surprise, the Church is making sure not promote people who disagree with its teachings.

So why did the Bishops of Canada change their position? Because some younger guys want to suck up to a dead Pope? Don’t think so. It’s good old 20/20 hindsight.

They didn’t change their position- these are new bishops, appointed by an entity that probably didn’t want to allow anymore disagreement coming from its high ranking members.

Now many of us had to learn the hard way that our current 20/20 hindsight is correct and our youthful myopia was wrong.

Everyone believes their current views to be correct- otherwise they’d have different views.

 

[tjm190]

Well, I can tell you he didn’t make that up.

Gotta side question for you… if you don’t mind. What does the sexual act mean or imply to you?

side questions are always fun.

I believe it general implies extreme affection, aka love.
But it depends on the circumstance- I don’t believe actions have inherent meaning.

 

[newbetx]

… you seem to have forgotten how this came up. Someone stated that my view on contraception was so contrary to the Catholic church’s that it required my leaving it- as a result i showed how several bishops, successors of the apostles, held similar beliefs. I say beliefs rather than opinions, because opinions are strictly subjective- the logical process of noncontradiction, which you are about to employ, does not hold for opinions.

Sorry. I guess I missed something. Any poster is wrong to suggest you leave the faith. Besides being against forum rules, it’s non-charitable and, well, selfish. Many here, aren’t as patient as the Church is. My apologies for my mistake and for any rudeness of others here.

Given that Catholic bishops have openly challenged the church’s position on ABC I think I’ll be fine- therosarium.ca/indextemps/winnipeg.html

I never, ever, ever, even implied they were correct. All I meant to convey was that the successors of the apostles are quite capable of breaking with this particular teaching- why should partitioners be held to a higher standard of obedience?

Oh, OK. Well, we’re all called to a higher standard. By Christ. Even some of the clergy fall short. Some publicly, others privately.

So I guess I mistook your “I’ll be fine” to mean that as long as a few vocal Bishops disagreed, you could too. Not sure how I got that idea.

Surprise surprise, the Church is making sure not promote people who disagree with its teachings.

Really? That’s some claim. Got any proof?

They didn’t change their position- these are new bishops, appointed by an entity that probably didn’t want to allow anymore disagreement coming from its high ranking members.

Really? That’s some claim. Got any proof?

There have always been dissidents. And there are still plenty more out there. The Church isn’t like the Nazi’s. Squashing any opposition. Really. One might think you’ve been watching those Anti-Catholic conspiracy movies.

Everyone believes their current views to be correct- otherwise they’d have different views.

Quite right. And only the ones interested in the truth will seek it.

 

[newbetx]

side questions are always fun.

I believe it general implies extreme affection, aka love.
But it depends on the circumstance- I don’t believe actions have inherent meaning.

That is a very key concept here.
But what kind of love? Forever love? Love until we split or I find a better love, love? Love as long as you’re here love?

You know about the four different words Greek has for love, right? Which one of those best describes the love you mean?

But alas, I can’t continue tonight. I have to be up early tomorrow. But we’ll come back to this. But it may be Monday based on how busy I am on weekends. I’ll try to be back tomorrow night to continue the discussion but I can’t promise.

Have a great weekend.