Contraception question

[rpp]

Noma,

I will make one last point then I will ask that you take a look at some other sources.

ABC is forbidden by natural law because it interferes with natural **life-giving **process. This cannot be confused with rendering medical aid because that is live saving, not life generating. In medical care, life saving is important. In reproductive activity, a new immortal soul is created with by the man, the woman and God.

At this point, since you do not appear to accept the teachings of the Bishops and the Popes, I am at an end. I am not a theologian. While I do not concede defeat, I will concede that I am unable to convince you primarily because of you’re avowed refusal to accept the basic premise that we are to obey the teaching of the Pope and Bishops (when the Bishops teach in communion with the Holy See.

The previous poster, Setter, gave what I believe is a very good description of why are are to follow the teachings of the bishops.

If you are genuinely interested in remaining in communion with the Church, this is an important matter. ABC is a grave matter, like maturbation which you alluded to post. Both are grave sins, both, are nearly always mortal sins (referring to the requirements of a mortal sin).

I looking at sources, I would strongly discourage you from looking at sources from organizations such as Catholics For Choice and Call to Action. These organizations do represent the teachings of the Catholic Church and many members have been excommunicated merely by refusing to denounce their membership in those organizations. Of course secular sources are no good for learning true Church teachings either.

Instead, I encourage you to look at the primary site here at Catholic Answers (see citations in my previous posts as well as other posts). Another excellent resource is from Christopher West. He has written several books and numerous artticles on the subject of Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. It is what helped to convince and educate me. (Though obviously not well enough to explain it you, I am sorry to say.)

Though I know I warned you about secular sources, here is an article from quasi-secular New Atlantis which contrasts JPII’s Theology of the Body with modern secular thought. Rather stimulating reading. thenewatlantis.com/archive/9/hart.htm

I will add that this is an area of much dissent within the church, among the clergy and even among some bishops. However, as was hinted at by the previous poster, this dissent is not legitimate. You may or may not believe what happened at Fatima, or our the image of Lady of Guadalupe is of miraculous origin. That dissent is permitted. You cannot dissent and claim that masturbation or ABC is a sin as, was pointed out earlier, these were the consistent teachigs of the Church, long before the time of Pope Paul VI and Humanae Vitae.

Thank you for an interesting dicussion. I am sorry I was better informed or more articulate.

 

[noma]

Thank you for sharing your views.

I think you have done so in a very lucid and powerful manner.

Though I remain unmoved in my position (and am becoming more and more of the thought that there is no force of authority irreformably denying that artificial birth control is morally neutral), I am always pleased to learn, and will pay good attention to the resources you suggest.

Again, many thanks for a mature and intelligent conversation, and some things to think about.

 

[fix]

1. However, this does not entitle one to hold that the pronouncements and doctrinal decisions of the Magisterium call for irrevocable assent only when it states them in a solemn judgment or definitive act, and that, consequently, in all other cases one need only consider the arguments or reasons employed.MAGISTERIUM EXERCISES AUTHORITY IN CHRIST’S NAME **Pope John Paul **II
   ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP951124.HTM

**

**

Therefore, the Encyclical Humanae Vitae therefore contains the moral norm and its reason, or at least an examination of what constitutes the reason for the norm. Moreover, since in the norm the moral value is expressed in a binding way, it follows that acts in conformity with the norm are morally right, while acts contrary to it are intrinsically illicit. The author of the encyclical stresses that * this norm belongs to the natural law*, that is to say, it is in accordance with reason as such. The Church teaches this norm, although it is not formally (that is, literally) expressed in Sacred Scripture. It does this in the conviction that the interpretation of the precepts of natural law belongs to the competence of the Magisterium.

     However, we can say more. Even if the moral law, formulated in this way         in *Humanae Vitae*, is not found literally in Sacred Scripture,         nonetheless, from the fact that it is contained in tradition and—as          Pope Paul VI writes—has          been "very often expounded by the Magisterium" (*HV* n. 12) to the          faithful, it follows that this norm is *in accordance with the sum         total of revealed doctrine contained in biblical sources* (cf. *HV*          n. 4).

The Norm of Humanae Vitae Arises from the Natural Law and the Revealed OrderPope John Paul II
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb114.htm

 

[Syele]

I didn’t read every post so If I’m repeating, I’m sorry.

The pill, IUD’s etc. are not morally neutral because they are abortificant. Anything that causes the death of a human child is morally wrong.

 

[noma]

1. However, this does not entitle one to hold that the pronouncements and doctrinal decisions of the Magisterium call for irrevocable assent only when it states them in a solemn judgment or definitive act, and that, consequently, in all other cases one need only consider the arguments or reasons employed.MAGISTERIUM EXERCISES AUTHORITY IN CHRIST’S NAME Pope John Paul II

I agree with this statement. And I do consider the ordinary magisterium in this case, as was expressed in Humanae Vitae. It is just that, after such serious consideration, I do not accept the ordinary magisterium in this case.

It does this in the conviction that the interpretation of the precepts of natural law belongs to the competence of the Magisterium.

Agreed, but the ordinary magisterium can be in error concerning teachings on Natural Law. I believe that, in this case it is.

However, we can say more. Even if the moral law, formulated in this way in Humanae Vitae, is not found literally in Sacred Scripture, nonetheless, from the fact that it is contained in tradition

Where in Apostolic Tradition do we find this?

and—as Pope Paul VI writes—has been “very often expounded by the Magisterium” (HV n. 12) to the faithful, it follows that this norm is in accordance with the sum total of revealed doctrine contained in biblical sources (cf. HV n. 4).

The Norm of Humanae Vitae Arises from the Natural Law and the Revealed OrderPope John Paul II

Being often expressed does not make a statement inerrant, or irreformable. So I disagree with the Pope’s conclusion in this case. I find his argument wanting.

 

[noma]

The pill, IUD’s etc. are not morally neutral because they are abortificant. Anything that causes the death of a human child is morally wrong.

I would agree, if the Pill were an abortificant, and so would likewise find it always unacceptable for use.

But what evidence is there that the Pill is an abortificant? This is a scientific question, and so the only authority acceptable would be that of clear observation and experimentation.

So I would need a link to a peer-reviewed publication that has found that it is likely the pill causes abortions (or the expulsion of zygotes, or however else one wishes to word it).

 

[noma]

The pill, IUD’s etc. are not morally neutral because they are abortificant. Anything that causes the death of a human child is morally wrong.

I would agree, if the Pill were an abortificant, and so would likewise find it always unacceptable for use.

But what evidence is there that the Pill is an abortificant? This is a scientific question, and so the only authority acceptable would be that of clear observation and experimentation.

So I would need a link to a peer-reviewed publication that has found that it is likely the pill causes abortions (or the expulsion of zygotes, or however else one wishes to word it).

 

[noma]

The pill, IUD’s etc. are not morally neutral because they are abortificant. Anything that causes the death of a human child is morally wrong.

I would agree, if the Pill were an abortificant, and so would likewise find it always unacceptable for use.

But what evidence is there that the Pill is an abortificant? This is a scientific question, and so the only authority acceptable would be that of clear observation and experimentation.

So I would need a link to a peer-reviewed publication that has found that it is likely the pill causes abortions (or the expulsion of zygotes, or however else one wishes to word it).

 

[fix]

Actually, if we consider the of teaching, the Magisterium can teach a doctrine as either by a or by a First of all, the Magisterium can proclaim a doctrine as definitive, and thus to be believed with divine faith or to be held in a definitive way, through a solemn pronouncement of the Pope or an Ecumenical Council. However, the ordinary papal Magisterium can teach a doctrine as because it has been constantly maintained and held by Tradition and transmitted by the ordinary, universal Magisterium. This latter exercise of the charism of infallibility does not take the form of a papal act of definition, but pertains to the ordinary, universal Magisterium which the Pope again sets forth with his formal pronouncement of and (generally in an Encyclical or Apostolic Letter). If we were to hold that the Pope must necessarily make an definition whenever he intends to declare a doctrine as definitive because it belongs to the deposit of faith, it would imply an underestimation of the ordinary, universal Magisterium, and infallibility would be limited to the solemn definitions of the Pope or a Council, in a way that differs from the teaching of Vatican I and Vatican II, which attribute an infallible character to the teachings of the ordinary, universal Magisterium.

The particular of a teaching of the papal Magisterium that is meant merely to confirm or repropose a certitude of faith already lived consciously by the Church or affirmed by the universal teaching of the entire Episcopate can be seen not in the teaching of the doctrine <per se,> but in the fact that the Roman Pontiff formally declares that this doctrine already belongs to the faith of the Church and is infallibly taught by the ordinary, universal Magisterium as divinely revealed or to be held in a definitive way.

The ordinary, universal Magisterium consists in the proclamation of the Bishops in union with the Pope. It is expressed in the fact that the Bishops (including the Bishop of Rome, who is the Head of the College) give a common witness. It is not a question of extraordinary statements, but of the Church’s normal life, of what is preached in ordinary circumstances as universal teaching in the everyday life of the Church. “<This ordinary Magisterium is thus the normal form of the Church’s infallibility>”.’ As a consequence, it is not at all necessary that everything pertaining to the faith become explicit dogma; on the contrary, it is normal for the truth to be proposed simply by its proclamation in common -which includes non only words but also facts; the particular and explicit emphasis of a dogmatic definition is, properly speaking, an extraordinary case, usually required for very precise and particular reasons. b) Moreover, when speaking of the need to verify the actual consent of all the Bishops dispersed throughout the world or even of the whole Christian people in matters of faith and morals, it should not be forgotten that this consent cannot be understood only <synchronically,> but also . This means that a morally consent embraces every era of the Church, and only if this totality is heard does one remain faithful to the Apostles. “If in some quarter”, the wise Cardinal Ratzinger observes, “a majority were to be formed in opposition to the faith of the Church in other times, it would not be a majority at all”.2

It is also worth noting that the agreement of the universal Episcopate in communion with the Successor of Peter about the doctrinal and binding character of an assertion or an ecclesial practice in ages past is not annulled or diminished by dissent that may occur in a later era.

MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS AND PUBLIC DISSENT

 

[fix]

Actually, if we consider the of teaching, the Magisterium can teach a doctrine as either by a or by a First of all, the Magisterium can proclaim a doctrine as definitive, and thus to be believed with divine faith or to be held in a definitive way, through a solemn pronouncement of the Pope or an Ecumenical Council. However, the ordinary papal Magisterium can teach a doctrine as because it has been constantly maintained and held by Tradition and transmitted by the ordinary, universal Magisterium. This latter exercise of the charism of infallibility does not take the form of a papal act of definition, but pertains to the ordinary, universal Magisterium which the Pope again sets forth with his formal pronouncement of and (generally in an Encyclical or Apostolic Letter). If we were to hold that the Pope must necessarily make an definition whenever he intends to declare a doctrine as definitive because it belongs to the deposit of faith, it would imply an underestimation of the ordinary, universal Magisterium, and infallibility would be limited to the solemn definitions of the Pope or a Council, in a way that differs from the teaching of Vatican I and Vatican II, which attribute an infallible character to the teachings of the ordinary, universal Magisterium.

The ordinary, universal Magisterium consists in the proclamation of the Bishops in union with the Pope. It is expressed in the fact that the Bishops (including the Bishop of Rome, who is the Head of the College) give a common witness. It is not a question of extraordinary statements, but of the Church’s normal life, of what is preached in ordinary circumstances as universal teaching in the everyday life of the Church. “<This ordinary Magisterium is thus the normal form of the Church’s infallibility>”.’ As a consequence, it is not at all necessary that everything pertaining to the faith become explicit dogma; on the contrary, it is normal for the truth to be proposed simply by its proclamation in common -which includes non only words but also facts; the particular and explicit emphasis of a dogmatic definition is, properly speaking, an extraordinary case, usually required for very precise and particular reasons. b) Moreover, when speaking of the need to verify the actual consent of all the Bishops dispersed throughout the world or even of the whole Christian people in matters of faith and morals, it should not be forgotten that this consent cannot be understood only <synchronically,> but also . This means that a morally consent embraces every era of the Church, and only if this totality is heard does one remain faithful to the Apostles. “If in some quarter”, the wise Cardinal Ratzinger observes, “a majority were to be formed in opposition to the faith of the Church in other times, it would not be a majority at all”.2

It is also worth noting that the agreement of the universal Episcopate in communion with the Successor of Peter about the doctrinal and binding character of an assertion or an ecclesial practice in ages past is not annulled or diminished by dissent that may occur in a later era.

MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS AND PUBLIC DISSENT

 

[fix]

Actually, if we consider the of teaching, the Magisterium can teach a doctrine as either by a or by a First of all, the Magisterium can proclaim a doctrine as definitive, and thus to be believed with divine faith or to be held in a definitive way, through a solemn pronouncement of the Pope or an Ecumenical Council. However, the ordinary papal Magisterium can teach a doctrine as because it has been constantly maintained and held by Tradition and transmitted by the ordinary, universal Magisterium. This latter exercise of the charism of infallibility does not take the form of a papal act of definition, but pertains to the ordinary, universal Magisterium which the Pope again sets forth with his formal pronouncement of and (generally in an Encyclical or Apostolic Letter). If we were to hold that the Pope must necessarily make an definition whenever he intends to declare a doctrine as definitive because it belongs to the deposit of faith, it would imply an underestimation of the ordinary, universal Magisterium, and infallibility would be limited to the solemn definitions of the Pope or a Council, in a way that differs from the teaching of Vatican I and Vatican II, which attribute an infallible character to the teachings of the ordinary, universal Magisterium.

The ordinary, universal Magisterium consists in the proclamation of the Bishops in union with the Pope. It is expressed in the fact that the Bishops (including the Bishop of Rome, who is the Head of the College) give a common witness. It is not a question of extraordinary statements, but of the Church’s normal life, of what is preached in ordinary circumstances as universal teaching in the everyday life of the Church. “<This ordinary Magisterium is thus the normal form of the Church’s infallibility>”.’ As a consequence, it is not at all necessary that everything pertaining to the faith become explicit dogma; on the contrary, it is normal for the truth to be proposed simply by its proclamation in common -which includes non only words but also facts; the particular and explicit emphasis of a dogmatic definition is, properly speaking, an extraordinary case, usually required for very precise and particular reasons. b) Moreover, when speaking of the need to verify the actual consent of all the Bishops dispersed throughout the world or even of the whole Christian people in matters of faith and morals, it should not be forgotten that this consent cannot be understood only <synchronically,> but also . This means that a morally consent embraces every era of the Church, and only if this totality is heard does one remain faithful to the Apostles. “If in some quarter”, the wise Cardinal Ratzinger observes, “a majority were to be formed in opposition to the faith of the Church in other times, it would not be a majority at all”.2

It is also worth noting that the agreement of the universal Episcopate in communion with the Successor of Peter about the doctrinal and binding character of an assertion or an ecclesial practice in ages past is not annulled or diminished by dissent that may occur in a later era.

MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS AND PUBLIC DISSENT

 

[setter]

Though I do not accept that the teaching of the Church about contraception is even about faith and morals, even if it were, this is not infallibly taught, this does not follow necessarily from what is infallibly taught, and so no one need not assent to it to be a good Catholic.

The Church teaching of prohibition of any forms of ABC falls under the Deposit of Faith, which all faithful Catholics are bound to accept and believe with the full assent of faith.

**FIRST VATICAN COUNCIL **(1869-1870)

Session 3 : 24 April 1870

Dogmatic constitution on the Catholic faith

1. For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM

St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: “a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas”. …The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church. The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval.

72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:5kRXVnAuOrEJ:www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm+catholic+deposit+of+faith+new+advent&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

84 The apostles entrusted the “Sacred deposit” of the faith (the depositum fidei), contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. “By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

The work of conversion is ultimately dependent upon God and our disposition to receive, as today’s Gospel reading makes clear:

Jesus rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said,
“I give you praise, Father, Lord of heaven and earth,
for although you have hidden these things
from the wise and the learned
you have revealed them to the childlike.
Yes, Father, such has been your gracious will.
All things have been handed over to me by my Father.
No one knows who the Son is except the Father,
and who the Father is except the Son
and anyone to whom the Son wishes to reveal him.” Lk 10:21-24

 

[setter]

Though I do not accept that the teaching of the Church about contraception is even about faith and morals, even if it were, this is not infallibly taught, this does not follow necessarily from what is infallibly taught, and so no one need not assent to it to be a good Catholic.

The Church teaching of prohibition of any forms of ABC falls under the Deposit of Faith, which all faithful Catholics are bound to accept and believe with the full assent of faith.

**FIRST VATICAN COUNCIL **(1869-1870)

Session 3 : 24 April 1870

Dogmatic constitution on the Catholic faith

1. For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM

St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: “a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas”. …The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church. The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval.

72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:5kRXVnAuOrEJ:www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm+catholic+deposit+of+faith+new+advent&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

84 The apostles entrusted the “Sacred deposit” of the faith (the depositum fidei), contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. “By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

The work of conversion is ultimately dependent upon God and our disposition to receive, as today’s Gospel reading makes clear:

Jesus rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said,
“I give you praise, Father, Lord of heaven and earth,
for although you have hidden these things
from the wise and the learned
you have revealed them to the childlike.
Yes, Father, such has been your gracious will.
All things have been handed over to me by my Father.
No one knows who the Son is except the Father,
and who the Father is except the Son
and anyone to whom the Son wishes to reveal him.” Lk 10:21-24

 

[rpp]

The Church teaching of prohibition of any forms of ABC falls under the Deposit of Faith, which all faithful Catholics are bound to accept and believe with the full assent of faith.

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM

72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:5kRXVnAuOrEJ:www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm+catholic+deposit+of+faith+new+advent&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

The work of conversion is ultimately dependent upon God and our dispositioto receive, as today’s Gospel reading makes clear:

Jesus rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said,
“I give you praise, Father, Lord of heaven and earth,
for although you have hidden these things
from the wise and the learned
you have revealed them to the childlike.
Yes, Father, such has been your gracious will.
All things have been handed over to me by my Father.
No one knows who the Son is except the Father,
and who the Father is except the Son
and anyone to whom the Son wishes to reveal him.” Lk 10:21-24

Thank you very much. This was well done.

Even if we don’t think something is part of the Deposit of Faith, when the Church tells us it is a doctrine, then it is. To disagree with Magesterial teachings is to be in error. In fact that is what defines error.

 

[noma]

Thank you very much. This was well done.

Even if we don’t think something is part of the Deposit of Faith, when the Church tells us it is a doctrine, then it is. To disagree with Magesterial teachings is to be in error. In fact that is what defines error.

I disagree with this, to the point where I do not think that this is logically defensible.

It is known that the ordinary magisterium has erred. But you claim that all disagreement with magisterial teaching would be in error. Since the truth has been different from magisterium teachings, the logical conclusion would be that truth is error.

So I cannot accept what you present.

And as for setter’s comment, since artificial birth control is not part of the deposit of faith (it is certainly not dogmatic), rejecting it is not heretical.

So I cannot accept what you present.

And as for setter’s comment, since artificial birth control is not part of the deposit of faith (it is certainly not dogmatic), rejecting it is not heretical.

 

[rpp]

I disagree with this, to the point where I do not think that this is logically defensible.

It is known that the ordinary magisterium has erred.

[sign]Whoa!!![/sign]

(These signs are cool. I just discovered them! I have been waiting for chance to use them! )

Very bold statement. I need serious and significant **credible **citations here. This is at least the second time you have made this assertion. Proof, proof, proof!

But you claim that all disagreement with magisterial teaching would be in error. Since the truth has been different from magisterium teachings, the logical conclusion would be that truth is error.

So I cannot accept what you present.

And as for setter’s comment, since artificial birth control is not part of the deposit of faith (it is certainly not dogmatic), rejecting it is not heretical.

So I cannot accept what you present.

And as for setter’s comment, since artificial birth control is not part of the deposit of faith (it is certainly not dogmatic), rejecting it is not heretical.

It seems that everything you say in contingent upon the Church making a mistake (Magisterial error).

None of your other points are valid if this one is false. Please provide the example(s) of Magisterial error.

 

[setter]

And as for setter’s comment, since artificial birth control is not part of the deposit of faith (it is certainly not dogmatic), rejecting it is not heretical.

So I cannot accept what you present.

The prohibition against ABC is part of the deposit of faith (when the “deposit of faith” is properly understood). I am open to any credible, authoritative source documentation that you can provide that otherwise supports your above assertion.

I will summarily note again (see previous thread post citations) that pertaining to " …the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church", ([72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:5kRXVnAuOrEJ:www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm+catholic+deposit+of+faith+new+advent&hl =en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1](http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache...b.htm+catholic+deposit+of+faith+new+advent&hl =en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1)) “it is not at all necessary that everything pertaining to the faith become explicit dogma; on the contrary, it is normal for the truth to be proposed simply by its proclamation in common -which includes non only words but also facts; the particular and explicit emphasis of a dogmatic definition is, properly speaking, an extraordinary case, usually required for very precise and particular reasons.” (MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS AND PUBLIC DISSENT link).

 

[fix]

I disagree with this, to the point where I do not think that this is logically defensible.

It is known that the ordinary magisterium has erred. But you claim that all disagreement with magisterial teaching would be in error. Since the truth has been different from magisterium teachings, the logical conclusion would be that truth is error.

So I cannot accept what you present.

And as for setter’s comment, since artificial birth control is not part of the deposit of faith (it is certainly not dogmatic), rejecting it is not heretical.

So I cannot accept what you present.

And as for setter’s comment, since artificial birth control is not part of the deposit of faith (it is certainly not dogmatic), rejecting it is not heretical.

The universal and extraordinary magisterium teaches infallibly.

 

[fix]

I disagree with this, to the point where I do not think that this is logically defensible.

It is known that the ordinary magisterium has erred. But you claim that all disagreement with magisterial teaching would be in error. Since the truth has been different from magisterium teachings, the logical conclusion would be that truth is error.

So I cannot accept what you present.

And as for setter’s comment, since artificial birth control is not part of the deposit of faith (it is certainly not dogmatic), rejecting it is not heretical.

So I cannot accept what you present.

And as for setter’s comment, since artificial birth control is not part of the deposit of faith (it is certainly not dogmatic), rejecting it is not heretical.

The universal and ordinary magisterium teaches infallibly.

 

[noma]

To all:

After talking about a certain problem with my pastor, with friends, with you here, with family even, I have come to a conclusion.

First Point

And this is probably the most important for the sake of this forum.

I was wrong.

After reading some of the resources given by you here, I have come to the conclusion that I was absolutely and completely wrong about the teachings of the Roman Church.

The teaching on contraception, I can only conclude, is claimed to be infallible by the Roman Church, and that denying this is denying the Roman Church.

Thank you for your conviction. There are also other people I certainly thank in helping me discover this.

And I will say that any good Catholic anywhere must accept this teaching, if he wishes to call himself Roman Catholic. Period.

Second Point

Concerning a different post, I have decided to resign from RCIA (after expressing to them my reasons). I find that I do not have the appropriate beliefs to teach in RCIA classes. I have also decided to stop taking the Catholic Eucharist. Thank you for helping me realize how my beliefs are different from the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church.

Third Point

I was a recent convert. I came into the Church from atheism two years ago on easter, with the belief that the Roman Catholic Church was the only Christian Church. I was guided in after taking a class about the Summa Theologica taught by a Greek Orthodox professor. I then converted at a Byzantine Catholic Church. I studied and enjoyed the teachings promulgated there, and the beautiful liturgies of the Byzantine Catholics. I cannot think of anything else on earth that matches its splendor.

Fourth Point

There are aspects of the ordinary magisterium that I disagree with. By Point One, and given the fact that my wife’s family, and my own, are protestant, I have decided, being unwilling to change my mind about certain teachings of the Catholic Church that I consider ridiculous and indefensible, of which this is one, that I am leaving the Roman Catholic Church.

I plan on retaining membership (I’m not going to formally excommunicate myself just yet) until Easter. If these issues are not resolved by then, I will join an Anglican community nearby, and submit a letter to my diocese declaring my dissension, and my reasons for leaving the Church.

Until then, save for speaking with my spiritual adviser and going to confessions, I am not going to attend the Church as regularly as I have been (once a day), but probably will alternate Sundays between the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches.

I cannot bend, and will not bend, to a group of articles on the “faith”. I have a feeling that, if things were better explained to me in my own RCIA class, and if I had not been so stubborn, so excited, and so deaf to what they were trying to teach me, I may not have found myself in this painful situation.

Though I would like to, I no longer believe that the Roman Church is the Catholic Church, except in name.

Last Point

Conversations and about a year of soul-searching have gone into this. Many people have been involved in making this decision.

Though you helped show me that my beliefs were contrary to the claimed-“infallible” teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, you did not help me leave it. This I do of my own free will.

Your charity in the matter has been astounding. I thank you for this multi-forum interaction.

God’s blessings.

Paul