A
Aquarius
Guest
What does that have to do with an exclusive contract?
- Status
L
luvmykids
Guest
ok, this is completely getting of the topic of the thread. Maybe you should start your own on the infallibility of the Church on matters of faith and morals.
“In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility”(CCC 889). “Go and make disciples of all nations…teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always”(Mt 28:18-20); “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”(Mt 18:18); “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me”(Lk 10:16); “When the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide you into all the Truth” (Jn 16:13).“hold fast what you have, until I come”(Rv 2:25), “guard what has been entrusted to you” (Tm 6:20)
“The infallibility which the divine redeemer wished to endow His Church in defining doctrine pertaining to faith and morals, is co-extensive with the deposit of revelation”(Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution on the CHurch, Lumen Gentium, 25;cf. CCC 2035).
“It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error…To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals” (CCC 890).
A
Aquarius
Guest
That didn’t say anything about exclusivity. And it was not the word of God.
L
luvmykids
Guest
The word of God are the quotes from the bible. Did you miss that?
A
Aquarius
Guest
Those words said nothing about exclusivity.
L
LittleDeb
Guest
I have liked the bulemia analogy, but have encountered some holes in it especially by those who view bulemia as a “bad choice” rather than a dangerous disorder. Some bulemia sufferers claim to hate the sight of food and eat because they’re forced. Since it is a control disorder and contraception is also a control disorder, those suffering from either sometimes fail to make the connection.
During my talks on NFP I lean more towards healthy body vs. broken body. Contraception takes a healthy body and changes it to a sick body. This is done in many ways.
Hormonal contraception is self-explanatory. It alters healthy hormones to unhealthy. (If people try to say, ‘but what about the health benefits?’ I offer them a stack of references about how unhealthy those supposed benefits are.) Tubal ligation and Vasectomy are also obvious. They are unnecessary surgeries and have many risks. Condoms and diaphrams are more difficult to explain because they have been thrust upon society to the point that people just don’t see the problem. I ask people to explain in their own words the purpose of barrier methods. I ask them if words like ‘barrier’ and ‘protection’ belong between husband and wife. If the words don’t belong how can the items they represent belong there? Does an item, ‘latex’ which is used to (sometimes successfully) prevent disease in a hospital setting belong between husband and wife?
What is the disease they are trying to avoid? Fertility? Children? Each other?
I don’t know if that is helpful but it just my :twocents: As you said, it is helpful to have more than one anology.
PS. I also keep lots of CCL’s pamphlets on hand. I don’t have to give them out every time I just usually reference them. When we give talks to engaged couples we make it so people can take pamphlets anonymously. The one about ‘The Pill’ disappears faster than I can stock them.
H
Hitetlen
Guest
Hard to imagine, isn’t it? But be reassured, it happened, repeatedly. When I asked if extravaginal sex was OK between people who cannot conceive (for example removed ovaries and uterus), the answers were the same: that would be limiting God, for the reasons I mentioned. Of course it makes no sense.Who is saying that God would allow fertilization if you’ve taken your ovaries and uterus out? I must have missed something.
H
Hitetlen
Guest
And he sure messed up royally and ADMITTED it, too, plain and simple. Read the story of the Flood, where God decides to literally “flush” the first experiment down the toilet and start afresh. Never mind that all those innocent children were all subject to drowning.
H
Hitetlen
Guest
That is simply rationalization, and a very poor attempt at that. Using NFP the couple TRIES to avoid pregnancy, attempts to “frustrate” God’s will.
L
luvmykids
Guest
He didn’t “mess up”. It was a chastisement. Are you trying to tell me that all natural disasters are just God trying to fix what he messed up? It was because of OUR free will that God did that. We “messed up”. It was man’s decision to act in a way that caused God to do that. In your explanation, God messed up when he made everyone, because we are all sinners.
L
luvmykids
Guest
The couple using NFP does not try to frustrate God’s will. The couple using NFP is not trying to take from God what is His and manipulate it according to what the couple wants. Trying to get something out of it that God did not intend for. God does not tell everyone you have to have sex every day or only on fertile days. God’s will for the marital union is for the openess to life. You can still be open to life while using a day that would not normally be considered fertile. I know this from experience as this happened to me with one of my children. When you use contraception, you are frustrating the act, because you are manipulating it into something it was not meant to be. You are taking something away from it, and disrespecting the relationship between you and your spouse and you and the Lord. You can try to rationalize it all you want, but it continues to be just that. It causes the sex act to no longer be something sacred. It becomes more of a casual thing. Also easier for people who aren’t married to accept and for people who are married, to stray. Contraception puts a barrier between the two people.
S
setter
Guest
setter:
The Church hierarchy (“celibates”) is ordained by Jesus Himself to exercise authority (“upper hand”) over the faithful flock. And yes, in the structure of this ordained hierarchical structure founded on the person of Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit sent by the Father, the laity can have a greater participation in the formal functioning of the Church.
But your implication that the laity will change authoritative Church teaching in matters of faith and morals, as in the deposit of faith and principles of Catholic morality, is incorrect.
G
gardenswithkids
Guest
Great post LittleDeb! And hey–it’s even on the thread topic! I wanted to comment on something you wrote.
LittleDeb:
Bringing that back to the thread topic,:the majority of contraceptive users have children or want them in the future. They don’t hate children; they don’t hate sex; they just don’t want all the children that might result from sexual relations with their spouse. Like most bulemics who enjoy food but don’t want all the calories.
Anorexia nervosa is another food disorder often associated with bulemia, but it doesn’t always involve purging as bulemia does. Likewise, people can use all forms of birth control in a disordered way, keeping their families smaller than what is healthy for them. And some people practice disordered sexual styles without “purging” because the acts are inheritantly infertile acts. The Church teaches against this also.
We can’t always judge from merely looking at someone if they have a food disorder. Some people are naturally skinny or have other medical conditions that keep their weight very low. In contrast, some bulemics are overweight. Likewise we shouldn’t judge families with only one or two children; they may live more faithfully to Church teachings than others with larger families.
Like you wrote, these are control disorders. And the more disordered the person’s thinking, the harder it is for her or him to see the problem.
It sounds to me as those bulemics you describe here have anorexic tendencies if they “hate the sight of food”, The majority of bulemics are not anorexic, don’t hate the sight of food, and frequently they are overweight.
Bringing that back to the thread topic,:the majority of contraceptive users have children or want them in the future. They don’t hate children; they don’t hate sex; they just don’t want all the children that might result from sexual relations with their spouse. Like most bulemics who enjoy food but don’t want all the calories.
Anorexia nervosa is another food disorder often associated with bulemia, but it doesn’t always involve purging as bulemia does. Likewise, people can use all forms of birth control in a disordered way, keeping their families smaller than what is healthy for them. And some people practice disordered sexual styles without “purging” because the acts are inheritantly infertile acts. The Church teaches against this also.
We can’t always judge from merely looking at someone if they have a food disorder. Some people are naturally skinny or have other medical conditions that keep their weight very low. In contrast, some bulemics are overweight. Likewise we shouldn’t judge families with only one or two children; they may live more faithfully to Church teachings than others with larger families.
Like you wrote, these are control disorders. And the more disordered the person’s thinking, the harder it is for her or him to see the problem.
A
Aquarius
Guest
Aquarius:
I think they will change. I have to wonder what the ABC teaching would have been had he church always had a married priesthood.
J
john_ennis
Guest
setter:
Yes. In that situation, the Holy Spirit undoubtedly would have had a different opinion about ABC.
Peace.
John
J
john_ennis
Guest
I’ve made a similar relation. Never about bulemia, though. Rather, if the act were done entirely by choice (no emotional or physiological disorder, per se), as some cultures have accepted, most of us on both sides of the ABC issue would say there’s a moral deficiency at work.
If the analogy is simplified to be about the simple act of purging so that one is able to consume more, having thwarted the natural God-created consequences of overeating, then the act is remarkably similar to the act of contracepting.
Both acts are an attempt to indulge in that which has natural consequences that we must remove.
Peace.
John
L
LittleDeb
Guest
So well put Gardens! The things you point out are the reasons I feel the analogy works, but show how hard it can be to communicate what it means.
I especially like how you pointed out that some bulemics might be underweight while some might be overweight. Just as some who use contraception might have many children, while some who are free from contraception might have few. (those like myself who hope for more.)
The reason I hesitate to use the bulemia analogy is the number of people I have encountered who refuse to hold bulemia as a true disorder. They have said bulemia is just a selfish choice. (Obviously we know it is a severe disorder and those who suffer it must be helped.) On the other hand those who view it as a severe disorder are offended that contraception would be lumped in with a mental illness. At least that has been my experience. Grrrr.
I think maybe I need to read up more on Kippley’s presentation of it. Since my experience with the analogy has been negative, I am probably the one presenting it that way.
A
Aquarius
Guest
john ennis:
Aquarius:
Agree.
A
Aquarius
Guest
john ennis:
Just like chewing gum.
H
Hitetlen
Guest
Sure. IF someone knows that an experiment will not work as intended, and still goes along with it - just to destroy the result, that is an admission of an error, plain and simple. You (as in general “you” not personal) always try to whitewash God’s actions. It does not work. With power comes responsibility.
Oh, please. God MADE us sinners, KNEW we would sin, and did not do anything about it. Therefore the responsibility is HIS.
- Status