contraception

  • Thread starter Thread starter stepahnie52706
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No, I’m glad you responded. I just saw that it was a topic that we were going to have to “agree to disagree”. And what I meant by the origional topic was “why is birth control wrong”. sorry for the misunderstanding
 
I haven’t had time to read all these posts so excuse me if I repeat anything. Contraception is a sin because it frustrates God’s plan for conjugal union. It says no to God during the time He designs for us to be co-creators with him. It allows us to use each other, splitting the meaning of intercourse, which is unitive and procreative. People who can’t have children aren’t frustrating God’s plan because that’s the way they are made (unless they did it to themselves). There are a lot of stories of people being “unable” to have children and then getting pregnant. If we are to love like Christ, we must love completely and give our all to the other. When we contracept, we hold back. When we agree to abstain for a period (believe me, it takes prayer) we are not frustrating God’s plan.

There are many benefits to NFP. It is far more than Catholic birth control, and to treat it as such does it a disservice.
 
Well, quite simply, the sexual act must be both unitive and procreative. Otherwise it is a mockery of the sanctity of sex and an injustice to those of us who take sex seriously.

Also, in case you have trouble finding it:


This is a handy little tool. Before you post something, especially something this big of an issue, it’s always good to use this tool to make sure there isn’t already an identical thread to the one you’re about to create. Remember, it’s always better to reply to an existing thread, than to create a new one. Just some helpful advice from someone who spends too much time on the computer <.<
 
Here’s how to determine the proper use of sex. First, there is God’s early command to us to “be fruitful and multiply.”

The real indications come from natural law, using our reason. We can see the proper use when we look at the proper functions of our body. There are many practices that use parts of the body in ways they aren’t designed to be used. That’s is why they are called unnatural. When we use our bodies only in the ways in which they were designed we can see the proper use of sex. When man and women unite the proper way it is procreative because that is one of the built-in functions of sex. It allows us to be fruitful and multiply, as we are commanded to do. Anything that frustrates this natural function is disordered and a misuse of sexual relations. This principle can help us determine the rightness or wrongness of any act, including relations between members of the same sex.
 
Here’s something to think about regarding Genesis 1:28

Genesis 1:28
God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it…”

Is this a command, or is being fruitful and increasing in number the blessing that the beginning of the verse refers to? In English, it certainly sounds like it is a command, doesn’t it? But, compare this verse to Genesis 24:60
And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her, Thou art our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate of those which hate them.

In English, both verses appear to be commands. However, the second is clearly a blessing…unless of course it is possible for a human being, who has no control over another’s fertility, to command a woman to have children. I’m assuming that a majority of people would agree that Genesis 24:60 is a blessing rather than a command.

Again, English proves to cause some misunderstandings when it comes to translation. The Hebrew grammar for both of these verses is identical. How can one then be a blessing and the other be a command? Rather, isn’t it possible that God does not command us to have children, but that it is something that God does through human beings, and something that He uses to bless us?

Another thought, if this is a command that spans all generations and all peoples, what of those that never marry? As Paul speaks in 1 Corinthians 7, not everyone is cut out for marriage. And, I think that we all agree that only sex within marriage is pleasing to God. Therefore, those that never marry cannot righteously fulfil the “commandment” to ‘be fruitful and multiply’. It is my understanding that God does not command us to do anything that we are unable to achieve with His help (1 Cor 10:13, phil 4:13). Therefore, if Gen 1:28 is a command, then God has commanded something that not everyone is able to righteously fulfil.

Just a couple things to think about…
 
40.png
stepahnie52706:
Here’s something to think about regarding Genesis 1:28

Genesis 1:28
God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it…”

Is this a command, or is being fruitful and increasing in number the blessing that the beginning of the verse refers to? In English, it certainly sounds like it is a command, doesn’t it? But, compare this verse to Genesis 24:60
And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her, Thou art our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate of those which hate them.

In English, both verses appear to be commands. However, the second is clearly a blessing…unless of course it is possible for a human being, who has no control over another’s fertility, to command a woman to have children. I’m assuming that a majority of people would agree that Genesis 24:60 is a blessing rather than a command.

Again, English proves to cause some misunderstandings when it comes to translation. The Hebrew grammar for both of these verses is identical. How can one then be a blessing and the other be a command? Rather, isn’t it possible that God does not command us to have children, but that it is something that God does through human beings, and something that He uses to bless us?

Another thought, if this is a command that spans all generations and all peoples, what of those that never marry? As Paul speaks in 1 Corinthians 7, not everyone is cut out for marriage. And, I think that we all agree that only sex within marriage is pleasing to God. Therefore, those that never marry cannot righteously fulfil the “commandment” to ‘be fruitful and multiply’. It is my understanding that God does not command us to do anything that we are unable to achieve with His help (1 Cor 10:13, phil 4:13). Therefore, if Gen 1:28 is a command, then God has commanded something that not everyone is able to righteously fulfil.

Just a couple things to think about…
When you say "just a couple thoughts to think about I start to wonder what it is you are trying to get people to “think about.”

As someone who has struggled with infertility, I find your theory that Catholics hold “be fruitful and multiply” as some sort of command that cannot be filled by some to be somewhat insulting. I don’t say that it is an intentional insult I am just saying that it doesn’t appear that you have really thought through your personal Bible interpretation.

When you say “Paul speaks of those not cut out for marriage,” I again question your authority in interpreting Holy Scripture. I find it sad that you think that Paul was discussing celibacy is such a negative manner.

This confusion you have on commands to reproduce verses the idea that all marriage acts are to be procreative and unitive show me that you you really haven’t studied this topic in depth. I am concerned that you might start really inadvertanly insulting people with your overly simplistic definitions.

I spent many years being told by people whose understanding of the Bible was just as limited that “God didn’t mean for you to have children.” They too, interpreted Scripture in their own personal ways. Later in life I was told by devout Catholics “to follow God’s natural order and you will know his plan for you and children.” God’s natural order is that all sexual acts belong in marriage and all of those acts are to be procreative and unitive. By embracing these True teachings, I have a wonderful husband who embraces NFP and we have a wonderful son to show for it. We hope and pray that it is God’s will that we have more, but only by following God’s (fully Scriptural) teaching will we be able to have the family that God wants us to have.
 
40.png
stepahnie52706:
Here’s something to think about regarding Genesis 1:28

Genesis 1:28
God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it…”

Is this a command, or is being fruitful and increasing in number the blessing that the beginning of the verse refers to? In English, it certainly sounds like it is a command, doesn’t it? But, compare this verse to Genesis 24:60
And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her, Thou art our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate of those which hate them.

In English, both verses appear to be commands. However, the second is clearly a blessing…unless of course it is possible for a human being, who has no control over another’s fertility, to command a woman to have children. I’m assuming that a majority of people would agree that Genesis 24:60 is a blessing rather than a command.

Again, English proves to cause some misunderstandings when it comes to translation. The Hebrew grammar for both of these verses is identical. How can one then be a blessing and the other be a command? Rather, isn’t it possible that God does not command us to have children, but that it is something that God does through human beings, and something that He uses to bless us?

Another thought, if this is a command that spans all generations and all peoples, what of those that never marry? As Paul speaks in 1 Corinthians 7, not everyone is cut out for marriage. And, I think that we all agree that only sex within marriage is pleasing to God. Therefore, those that never marry cannot righteously fulfil the “commandment” to ‘be fruitful and multiply’. It is my understanding that God does not command us to do anything that we are unable to achieve with His help (1 Cor 10:13, phil 4:13). Therefore, if Gen 1:28 is a command, then God has commanded something that not everyone is able to righteously fulfil.

Just a couple things to think about…
When you say "just a couple thoughts to think about I start to wonder what it is you are trying to get people to “think about.”

As someone who has struggled with infertility, I find your theory that Catholics hold “be fruitful and multiply” as some sort of command that cannot be filled by some to be somewhat insulting. I don’t say that it is an intentional insult I am just saying that it doesn’t appear that you have really thought through your personal Bible interpretation.

When you say “Paul speaks of those not cut out for marriage,” I again question your authority in interpreting Holy Scripture. I find it sad that you think that Paul was discussing celibacy is such a negative manner.

This confusion you have on commands to reproduce verses the idea that all marriage acts are to be procreative and unitive show me that you you really haven’t studied this topic in depth. I am concerned that you might start really inadvertanly insulting people with your overly simplistic definitions.

I spent many years being told by people whose understanding of the Bible was just as limited that “God didn’t mean for you to have children.” They too, interpreted Scripture in their own personal ways. Later in life I was told by devout Catholics “to follow God’s natural order and you will know his plan for you and children.” God’s natural order is that all sexual acts belong in marriage and all of those acts are to be procreative and unitive. By embracing these True teachings, I have a wonderful husband who embraces NFP and we have a wonderful son to show for it. We hope and pray that it is God’s will that we have more, but only by following God’s (fully Scriptural) teaching will we be able to have the family that God wants us to have.
 
40.png
manualman:
No cmgeo, the church has NOT even changed a doctrine or moral teaching. Discliplines, yes. Morals, no. Won’t happen. We can talk about examples if you’d like to raise some…
There are a few examples that I would like to talk about.
I was also taught that the Church will not change a moral teaching. However, there do seem to be a few problems that have been brought up:
  1. Slavery. Pope Nicholas V on January 8, 1455 in the bull Romanus Pontifex allowed slavery. Jesuit missionaries owned slaves in the New World (America) in the 16th century. However, the present teaching of the Church is that slavery is not allowed.
  2. Torture. Pope Innocent IV sanctioned the use of torture to extract confessions. However, according to the present teaching torture is not allowed.
  3. Indisolubility of marriage. The teaching of the Church has been that marriage is indissoluble. At the present synod of bishops being held in Rome, there have been discussions about allowing divorced Catholics to receive Holy Communion. Also, the teaching has not changed theoretically, but operationally, there has been a change if you look at the number of annulments being granted. In 1930, there were about 9 annulments granted in the USA, whereas in 1989, it has shot up to about 60,000 in the USA. The allegation is that the theologians have gotten around the teaching of indissolubility of marriage by introducing the concept of easy to obtain annulments.
  4. There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. This has been changed so that according to the new teaching, Judaism is salvific for a Jew and he does not have to convert to Catholicism to be saved. A Jew may be saved within Judaism because the covenant that they have with God is suficient for them to be saved. This is the new teaching.
 
40.png
1ke:
Of course NFP and contraceptive have the same end. That is not at issue as the Church nowhere teaches it is immoral to space and plan a family or postpone a pregnancy. You seem to believe that because two things have the same end they are morally equivalent.
.
Cardinal Ottaviani appears to disagree with you.
“Cardinal Ottaviani spoke on the following day. ‘I am not pleased,’ he said, ‘with the statement in the text that married couples may determine the number of children they are to have. Never has this been heard of in the Church.’ He was the eleventh son in a family of twelve children, he said. ‘My father was a laborer, and the fear of having many children never entered my parents’ minds, because they trusted in providence.’” (Fr. Ralph M. Wiltgen, S.V.D., The Rhine flows into the Tiber- A History of Vatican II. Tan Books, 1985, p. 269.)
 
sorry LittleDeb, I didn’t mean to insult anyone. and when i said “aren’t cut out for marriage” i was just refering to 1 Corinthians 7 where Paul addresses the topic of marriage indepth, in which he says that it is right to marry and even more right not to marry (because an unmarried person’s concerns are not devided between their mate and God). Guess I should have chosen my wording better, sorry.
 
40.png
stepahnie52706:
sorry LittleDeb, I didn’t mean to insult anyone. and when i said “aren’t cut out for marriage” i was just refering to 1 Corinthians 7 where Paul addresses the topic of marriage indepth, in which he says that it is right to marry and even more right not to marry (because an unmarried person’s concerns are not devided between their mate and God). Guess I should have chosen my wording better, sorry.
Thank you for clarifying. It had me concerned. I am glad you are able to see celibacy as something Paul said was a good thing if it is “for the kingdom.”

In answer to your other question about “be fruitful and multiply” being a command or a blessing. It is viewed as a command with blessings as its reward.

It is interpreted as a command, just not the blanket command you suspect. It is a command to the married. God does not say to the unmarried to be fruitful and multiply, just to those who are called to be married.

As to those of us who might not be able to “fulfill the command” by your concern. We ARE fulfilling it by being fruitful. We might not be adding children at some unspecified rate but we are still fruitful through one child we might have or children we might foster or adopt.

The confusion seems to be that fruitful is limited in some people’s eyes as being able to reproduce. The Catholic interpretation is toward generosity. From the limited definition, even an unwed teen is “fruitful,” meaning with eggs or sperm, but that is not what God meant. He called married people towards generosity.

Yes, children are a blessing but they are not the only blessing. The command to be fruitful and multiply is one that can be fulfilled by all married people whether they have zero natural children or one child or ten children. The command is toward generosity in accepting all children God wants us to have.

I hope you will continue to read on these boards to a full understanding of Catholic teaching. Thank you for allowing me to share this gift during your quest for Truth.
 
40.png
stanley123:
There are a few examples that I would like to talk about.
  1. Slavery. Pope Nicholas V on January 8, 1455 in the bull Romanus Pontifex …
  2. Torture. Pope Innocent IV sanctioned the use of torture …
  3. Indisolubility of marriage.
  4. There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church… A Jew may be saved within Judaism because the covenant that they have with God is suficient for them to be saved.
OK, Here we go…
  1. I’m not familiar with that particular papal bull. So I can’t comment on it quickly. But I CAN relay to you that it is very important to understand two distinctions. First, church doctrine is infallible, but not necessarily perfectly developed. In other words, it is a negative protection. She is protected from teaching error. She is not enabled to know all truth instantly. This is why it took a long time to develop the doctrine of the Trinity. The understanding grew piece by piece. During the process, there were never dead ends. Nothing was defined and then repudiated later. While I admit ignorance on the slavery issue, I suspect if you study it thoroughly, you will see the church developed its current position the same way. To identify certain injustices about how it was practiced, restrict certain abuses, require ‘owners’ NOT behave in certain ways, require that they treat slaves with certain dignity, then finally come to the realization that the very institution is incompatible with human dignity. I’ll have to read up on this one to see if this is the case.
Secondly, individual encyclicals are NOT automatically ‘ex cathedra’ statements enjoying infallibility. This is a tricky point. Some folks don’t understand that not everything a pope says or writes is infallible. Only when the ex cathedra priveledge is explicitly invoked or when a pope speaks/writes in full communion with the consistent historic teaching of the church does infallibility get involved.
  1. Some popes had mistresses too. Doesn’t mean the church ever defined adultery as OK. Infallibility does NOT work by inference! A pope ordering torture is an example of a pope sinning. I’m not aware of any document that defines torture as an act permissible under catholic moral teachings. I suspect you aren’t either.
  2. Nothing has changed on the theological level. The church still understands Jesus words to mean that a sacramental marriage cannot be dissolved. That she has grown more compassionate towards those whose marriage indeed had some defect that prevented them from receiving the sacrament is not a change in doctrine. It is a change in discipline (which does not enjoy infallibility). Individual annulment decisions, I would think, fall under the category of prudential judgement. Again, this does not enjoy infallibility. (And I suspect the church IS too freely handing out annulments) On the other hand, we live today in a society highly ignorant and apathetic of church teachings. No wonder so many have impediments to a full sacramental marriage.
  3. Nope, that ain’t the new teaching. Christianity inherently makes Judaism obsolete. What the church has done since Vatican II is to further develop the nuances of the doctrine of ‘no salvation outside the church.’ Unfortunately, too many people don’t understand the meaning and interpret it like you have here. The old: Jesus is the messiah, third person of the Trinity. Only through his grace can we be saved. He gave us the church and the sacraments in order for us to know him, love him and be sanctified.
    The new: Jesus is the messiah, third person of the Trinity. Only through his grace can we be saved. He gave us the church and the sacraments in order for us to know him, love him and be sanctified. Those who never come to know him through no fault of their own will be judged in perfect justice by how they responded to the graces they have received. Those of these who are saved are STILL saved through the grace of Jesus.
    Nothing in the above places Judaism (or any other religion) on par with catholicism. It merely harmonizes what we have come to know about God’s plan for salvation and his perfect justice.
  4. No Cardinal posses infallibility. But what this cardinal said still is worth considering. How much control SHOULD we believe we have over the number of children we have? SHOULD we have a preset number in our minds? Can NFP be practiced in such a way as to have some of the morally harmful effects of contraception? I suspect there are SOME NFP practicing catholics who, if honest, would have to answer: total, yes, no. And that is cause for concern. NFP CAN be practiced in a way that is almost as ‘closed to life’ as contraception. As life rolls along, every couple needs to always re-evaluate the seriousness of the reason they have if they are using NFP to avoid pregnancy.
 
Well, basically it goes like this. First you say that the RCC will never change its teaching on morals. Then someone brings you some examples where the teaching has changed and you say it is a development, but not a change.
For torture, you can look it up in the New Catholic Encyclopedia yourself and see that Pope Innocent IV gave the green light to the use of torture and that it was practiced during the inquisition.
For slavery and the turnaround in Catholic teaching (or as you call it the development) see:
liberalslikechrist.org/Catholic/slavery.html
Or see the papal bull Romanus Pontifex:
Excerpt:
“We [therefore] weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso – to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and** to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery,** and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit – by having secured the said faculty, the said King Alfonso, or, by his authority, the aforesaid infante, justly and lawfully has acquired and possessed, and doth possess, these islands, lands, harbors, and seas, and they do of right belong and pertain to the said King Alfonso and his successors, nor without special license from King Alfonso and his successors themselves has any other even of the faithful of Christ been entitled hitherto, nor is he by any means now entitled lawfully to meddle therewith – in order that King Alfonso himself and his successors and the infante.may be able the more zealously to pursue and may pursue this most pious and noble work, and most worthy of perpetual remembrance (which, since the salvation of souls, increase of the faith, and overthrow of its enemies may be procured thereby, we regard as a work wherein the glory of God, and faith in Him, and His commonwealth, the Universal Church, are concerned) in proportion as they, having been relieved of all the greater obstacles, shall find themselves supported by us and by the Apostolic See with favors and graces – we, being very fully informed of all and singular the premises, do, motu proprio, not at the instance of King Alfonso or the infante, or on the petition of any other offered to us on their behalf in respect to this matter, and after mature deliberation, by apostolic authority, and from certain knowledge, in the fullness of apostolic power, by the tenor of these presents decree and declare that the aforesaid letters of faculty (the tenor whereof we wish to be considered as inserted word for word in these presents, with all and singular the clauses therein contained) are extended to Ceuta and to the aforesaid and all other acquisitions whatsoever, even those acquired before the date of the said letters of faculty, and to all those provinces, islands, harbors, and seas whatsoever, which hereafter, in the name of the said King Alfonso and of his successors and of the infante, in those parts and the adjoining, and in the more distant and remote parts, can be acquired from the hands of infidels or pagans, and that they are comprehended under the said letters of faculty.”
 
For the teaching on annulments, to say that the teaching has not changed at all, seems incredible. If you look at the figure of 9 annulments granted in 1930 and compare that with 61,000 annulments granted in the USA in 1989, it looks like the teaching has changed.
As far as Judaism is concerned, you write: “Jesus is the messiah, third person of the Trinity. Only through his grace can we be saved.” However, that is not what is being taught now. According to the present teaching, Judaism and the Old Covenant are salvific for the Jews. There is no mention made of the Trinity here, only that the Old Covenant is salvific for them. This is a radical change in the doctrine as it was taught before Vatican II.
 
Here is another change in teaching which is being discussed (not yet implemented though). Or as some Catholics like to say, it is not really a change in teaching, only a development:

Review communion ban for divorced, bishop says
By Philip Pullella | October 5, 2005
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - A Roman Catholic prelate at a Vatican synod advising the Pope has boldly challenged his Church to re-think its rule that bars divorced Catholics who remarry from receiving communion.

Archbishop John Atcherly Dew of Wellington, New Zealand compared the plight of Catholics who wanted to receive communion but were barred from it to hunger in the world. Dew spoke on Tuesday evening and the Vatican released the text on Wednesday.

The Church does not recognize civil divorce and only allows annulments, rulings by Church courts that say a marriage never existed because it lacked prerequisites such as free will or psychological maturity by one or both partners.

Millions of Catholics around the world who have divorced in civil courts and remarried outside the Church still consider themselves good Catholics.

But they are banned from receiving communion, which the Church teaches is the body and blood of Christ, because they are considered to be living in sin.

“As bishops, we have a pastoral duty and an obligation before God to discuss and debate the difficulties burdening so many of our people,” Dew told the synod of more than 250 bishops who will draft final recommendations to the Pope at the end of their three-week meeting.

“Our Church would be enriched if we were able to invite dedicated Catholics, currently excluded from the Eucharist, to return to the Lord’s table,” he argued.
 
If it were easy to understand, we wouldn’t have any arguments, would we? 🙂

Again, let’s be sure to note that NOT every papal writing amounts to a dogmatic doctrinal statement on faith and morals. The pope can be VERY wrong when he operates outsidehis jurisdiction. Instructions to armies on how to conduct a specific war is NOT an infallible moral teaching. As I mentioned earlier, infallibility is NOT conveyed by inference. One cannot infer that the catholic church dogmatically promounced slavery as A-OK by demonstrating that a specific pope endorsed it in a specific circumstance. Do you see that distinction? I know it’s more fun to pump it up into a contradiction, but the facts just ain’t there. What you have is a specific case of a pope issuing specifc instructions that are, to our enlightened eyes, sinful. It is NOT an ex cathedra statement that slavery in general is morally justified. As I stated, this no more demonstrates a catholic endorsement of slavery in general as than the mistress of a pope would demonstrate church approval of fornication.

Annulments: Again numbers mean nothing. One can argue that the church was previously far too stingy in granting annulments, one can also argue that they are given far too freely today. Even if BOTH propositions are correct, it does not contradict the fact that the church has always and will always teach that a sacramental marriage is indisoluble. She is NOT infallible (AFAIK) on the prudential judgement regarding individual annulment decisions.

As far as Judaism goes, a good read on the subject is contained in George Weigel’s JPII biography. The issue is considerably more subtle than you summarize. I still hold that my description is closer to correct, but admit that it is too short to do justice to the truth.

Finally your point about divorced catholics and communion discussions is moot. NOBODY says that no bishop or cardinal ever proposes something for discussion that is wrong. What you discuss will never happen. Here’s why:
  1. Jesus said that marriage (real, sacramental marriage) is for life and cannot be broken/ended.
  2. Adultery is similarly a non-negotiable moral teaching and is grave matter.
  3. Remarriage of divorced people is, when 1 and 2 above are understood, adultery by definition.
  4. Doctrine states that receiving communion while in mortal sin is itself a sinful act.
Thus, IMO, the only way the proposal could ever be enacted would be if the bishops agreed that the bulk of the people were so poorly catechised as to not be fully in consent to the fact that their adultery is inherently evil, thus making it not for them, actually mortal sin. It would be a sad day were the bishops to sink that low in their teaching authority, but I suppose it COULD happen. It still wouldn’t change any doctrine or moral truth. Only a disciplinary judgement. If the couple really DID know they were committing mortal sin, it would still be wrong for them to receive. And I don’t believe you will ever see permission granted for those who KNOW that what they do is wrong to receive communion without repentence and confession.

Critics always find such discussions as the above weasly. But unfortunately reality is a messy place. I’d actually be MORE suspicious of a church that pretended the whole world was a nice neat clean place where it was never hard to tell right from wrong. Reality just doesn’t work that way. But when you learn to distinguish doctrine from discipline, prudential judgements from moral teaching, and individual behaviors from authoritative teaching it becomes amazingly clear how consistent catholic teaching has been over 2,000 years.
 
40.png
manualman:
. One cannot infer that the catholic church dogmatically promounced slavery as A-OK by demonstrating that a specific pope endorsed it in a specific circumstance. Do you see that distinction?.
No, I don’t because it was not just a specific Pope in a specific circumstance. For example:
According to the Catholic encyclopedia: "From the beginning the Christian moralist did

not condemn slavery as in se, or essentially, against the natural law or natural justice."
And according to:
liberalslikechrist.org/Catholic/slavery.html
362 AD
The local Council at Gangra in Asia Minor excommunicates

anyone encouraging a slave to despise his master or withdraw

from his service. (Became part of Church Law from the 13th

century).

354-430 AD

St. Augustine teaches that the institution of slavery derives from

God and is beneficial to slaves and masters. (Quoted by many

later Popes as proof of “Tradition”.

650 AD

Pope Martin I condemns people who teach slaves about freedom

or who encourage them to escape.

1089 AD

The Synod of Melfi under Pope Urban II imposed slavery on the

wives of priests. (Became part of Church Law from the 13th

century).

1179 AD

The Third Lateran Council imposed slavery on those helping the

Saracens.

1226 AD

The legitimacy of slavery is incorporated in the Corpus Iuris

Canonici, promulgated by Pope Gregory IX which remained

official law of the Church until 1913. Canon lawyers worked out

four just titles for holding slaves: slaves captured in war, persons

condemned to slavery for a crime; persons selling themselves into

slavery, including a father selling his child; children of a mother

who is a slave.

1224-1274 AD

St.Thomas Aquinas defends slavery as instituted by God in

punishment for sin, and justified as being part of the 'right of

nations’ and natural law. Children of a slave mother are rightly

slaves even though they have not committed personal sin!

(Quoted by many later Popes).

1454 AD

Through the bull Romanus Pontifex, Pope Nicholas V authorises

the king of Portugal to enslave all the Saracen and pagan peoples

his armies may conquer.

1493 AD

Pope Alexander VI authorises the King of Spain to enslave non-

Christians of the Americas who are at war with Christian powers.
 
40.png
manualman:
One cannot infer that the catholic church dogmatically promounced slavery as A-OK by demonstrating that a specific pope endorsed it in a specific circumstance. Do you see that distinction?.
No, I don’t because here is another decalration by another Pope:
1866 AD

The Holy Office in an instruction signed by Pope Pius IX

declares: "Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature,

is not at all contary to the natural and divine law, and there can

be several just titles of slavery, and these are referred to by

approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons …

It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be

sold, bought, exchanged or given".
 
From the above two posts, it looks to me like the teaching of the Church on the morality of slavery has changed, and that the present teaching is that slavery is immoral, whereas the previous teaching was that it was not immoral under certain circumstances.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top