Cradle Catholic questioning if I belong

[Thorolfr]

Which of these we subscribe to is largely a matter of exposure and institutional as well as social reinforcement. This is the main reason why myself and many others are Catholic and while others still are Jews or Muslims or Hindus or atheists.

Because of this very conundrum, I can’t see my own religious tradition as the only or the ultimate truth. To me, the Supreme Being I call God is beyond the understanding of any one religion, each of which captures some bit of what God is like and all are imperfect. It’s like the story of the blind men and the elephant. Each one touches a different part of the elephant and describes what it is like. One who feels the leg says the elephant is like a pillar; one who touches the tail say the elephant is like a rope; one who touches the ear says the elephant is like a hand fan; one who touches the trunk says it is like a branch, etc. They are all right in a sense, but none of them knows what the whole elephant is like.

 

[Faith1960]

And the combination of misinformation, inability to comprehend what one is reading, and lack of empathy in this thread are all demonstrations of why that is so!

Agreed. My priest hasnt told me to stay off here, but my SD has.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Because of this very conundrum, I can’t see my own religious tradition as the only or the ultimate truth. To me, the Supreme Being I call God is beyond the understanding of any one religion, each of which captures some bit of what God is like and all are imperfect. It’s like the story of the blind men and the elephant. Each one touches a different part of the elephant and describes what it is like. One who feels the leg says the elephant is like a pillar; one who touches the tail say the elephant is like a rope; one who touches the ear says the elephant is like a hand fan; one who touches the trunk says it is like a branch, etc. They are all right in a sense, but none of them knows what the whole elephant is like.

I agree completely.

 

[OurLadysServant]

believing that a mortal sin is always a mortal sin just because it was believed to be in the past.

I am obligated to attend a Catholic mass every week, and someone from a different faith, who knows the Catholic church and Its beliefs, is not. I understand the Eucharist, and that some believe that just being in the presence should be enough. Then why is someone who has never been in This presence, let alone receiving It, viewed to still be permitted into the Kingdom of God?

ALL public revelation was given by Jesus in the Catholic Tradition and in Scripture. Therefore, whatever is backed by scripture can never be denied. A mortal sin is ALWAYS a mortal sin under the three conditions. “Thou shalt not kill, and thou shalt not commit adultery” also mean no acts deliberately blocking child conception. Because its in the category of sodomy, premarital fornication for carnal reasons, masturbation, contraception, deliberate infertility operations. Surely you understand God created intercourse for creation of children as its main goal, and blocking this deliberately without medical reasons renders the act a completely carnal act for personal impure self gratification with a spouse. Whats the difference between it and contraception or sodomy ? Both acts deny life.

If a person doesnt understand Catholicism is the True Church then they don’t have full knowledge and may get into Heaven by following the conscience God gave them, outside of the Sunday obligation and Eucharist. If God has revealed to you that Catholism is the True Way, to turn your back on Catholicism then is a mortal sin.

“To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him forever by our own free choice” (CCC 1033).

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Forgive me for bringing up such an “absurd topic.” I thought this was a place where anyone could come to ask questions about beliefs of the Catholic church and reasons behind those beliefs. Or am I misintrepting your statement. Do you mean that the issue is so absurd that it doesn’t deserve the time spend disscussing it.

I am relieved that the consensus is that no one, the Catholic Church or any member, has the authority to say that any soul that dies having the presence of mortal sin is guaranteed to go to hell. That is for God to judge, and Him alone.

I still confused how the scholars, with all their knowledge of scripture, could possibly have pondered every sin in every context. Everyone agrees that some sins are acceptable for medical reason. I am not suggesting that my issues have medial reasoning, just that some sins in certain context are permissible. We have gained so much knowledge through technology, that believing that a mortal sin is always a mortal sin just because it was believed to be in the past. The Church has changes Her views on issues before, who is to say She won’t do it again?

As for fulfilling the Catholics Sunday obligation, I still don’t understand. How, having my Catholic religion chosen for me by my parents, I am obligated to attend a Catholic mass every week, and someone from a different faith, who knows the Catholic church and Its beliefs, is not. I understand the Eucharist, and that some believe that just being in the presence should be enough. Then why is someone who has never been in This presence, let alone receiving It, viewed to still be permitted into the Kingdom of God?

This is probably my last post. Feel free to respond, I in no way want to give the impression that I am trying to “have the last word.” I will read them. I feel that my time and energy should be given to my family and elsewhere. Thank you for your time and I hope that you are able to help others with their issues, no matter how trivial or complex they may me./
QUOTE]

My sincere apologies Busy Sleeper. If anything, I sympathize with your positiion. What I was trying to convey was the idea that institutional traditions can cause us to have struggles over absurd ideas that no one would come up with if not for conditioning. I apologize for not being more clear in my wording or for adding to your struggles.

 

[St_Francis]

I’m rearranging your comment so that my answers will (hopefully) make more sense.

…I am obligated to attend a Catholic mass every week, and someone from a different faith, who knows the Catholic church and Its beliefs, is not…Then why is someone who has never been in This presence, let alone receiving It, viewed to still be permitted into the Kingdom of God?

I have the feeling that you are imagining looking at a 4" binder stuffed with lists of things to do and things not to do wrt religion, and then looking at your husband’s religion report folder and wondering why he has only a few sheets of paper!

But that is so not the way it is supposed to be.

As for fulfilling the Catholics Sunday obligation, I still don’t understand. How, having my Catholic religion chosen for me by my parents, I am obligated to attend a Catholic mass every week, and someone from a different faith, who knows the Catholic church and Its beliefs, is not.

Imagine that Sally’s parents left her a huge fortune. Would she complain because her taxes went up? Would she be upset because now she has to talk to lawyers and stockbrokers about her investments? Would she envy others who do not have huge fortunes because they pay less in taxes and don’t have to bother with signing all those legal documents?

The Catholic faith your parents gave is is the huge fortune. This is the complete set of directions to Heaven. Moreover, it is not just directions, it is also a car with an unlimited gasoline gift card. Yes, it is true that you have to drive the car and follow the directions, but what better deal is there to get to Heaven?

It’s easy to look at those from other religions and think, wow, their binder is not as thick as mine–right, because their directions are not as complete as yours. Plus, they don’t get the car and the gasoline card as Catholics do.

That the Church does not teach that any particular person is in Hell does not mean that they are *not *in Hell, nor that it is easy to get to Heaven!

What did Christ say about getting to Heaven? “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.” (St Matthew 7:13) Rather, all indications from Christ, the Bible, and the saints, are that *many *are in Hell, even Catholics. Merely being Catholic doesn’t get you a free ride into Heaven, either.

Now, all those directions? If I had extremely detailed directions to Chicago, I would be in great shape–if I wanted to get to Chicago. Or, I might want to go to Chicago, but not drive the dozens of hours it would require for me to get there. Or I might not want to drive on Route 290 or step foot in Illinois.

I heard a sermon by a priest recently, and he described this conversation in a CCD class:

Father: How many of you want to go to Heaven?

Class: all raise hands

Father: How many of you want to do your chores without complaining?
How many of you want to deny yourself in order to help others?
How many of you want to be obedient to authority?
How many of you want to be pure?
How many of you want to pray each day, even throughout the day?

How many of you want to become saints?

He went on to explain that many of the students would say, “we want to go to Heaven, but we don’t want to be holy or become saints!” And yet, Father continued, being holy, becoming saints, and going to Heaven *are all the same thing! *

(My commentary) Of course I want to go to Heaven— sure, anyone would prefer going to Heaven than going to Hell But it’s not a free ride! It’s *not *like doing our taxes, where we check off various items and then the refund shows up.

*Getting to Heaven is about loving God, and showing that love for Him. *

First the Church introduces us to Someone who loves *each *of us *infinitely, *and then gives us help in and tells us how to *be with that wonderful Person for all eternity! *

So we do not envy non-Catholics. They have *much less *than we do. If you wanted $100K, which would you rather do: find a job which pays that amount, or play the lottery?

I am relieved that the consensus is that no one, the Catholic Church or any member, has the authority to say that any soul that dies having the presence of mortal sin is guaranteed to go to hell. That is for God to judge, and Him alone.

What the Church does teach is that people who are fully guilty of having committed mortal sin *do *to to Hell. God is the one Who judges whether they are sufficiently guilty of the mortal sin.

It is true that *some *who commit what is objectively mortal sin *may *not be *entirely *culpable, and there are several reasons for that; however, ignorance is not the Get-out-of-Hell–free card that some believe it to be. One must not be responsible for the lack of knowledge–if someone were from an Amazonian jungle before the arrival of the Spanish, their lack of knowledge would indeed be invincible. But there are few places on earth where knowledge is that hard to come by.

**continued below **

 

[St_Francis]

**continued from above **

I still confused how the scholars, with all their knowledge of scripture, could possibly have pondered every sin in every context.

They’ve had over 2,000 years… that’s a lot of time to consider the elements of various acts. Remember too, that Christ taught them a lot, and the Holy Spirit has guided them.

Everyone agrees that some sins are acceptable for medical reason.

Right, *some. *For example, if you are in the cardiac unit of the hospital, it is all right to miss Mass, but it is not all right to murder another patient so you can get your heart transplant.

I am not suggesting that my issues have medial reasoning, just that some sins in certain context are permissible.

While *some *sins *may *be justified by certain circumstances, there are no circumstances which justify the action you are talking about. What you are looking for just doesn’t exist.

We have gained so much knowledge through technology, that believing that a mortal sin is always a mortal sin just because it was believed to be in the past.

The issues you are talking about are both *more *easily dealt with properly now with all our technology, no? Think about women who didn’t have access to the necessary products or indoor plumbing! Think about those who had to walk everywhere they went.

Why suggest that the *Church *be the one to change because of technology rather than to be grateful that it is now easier for you to obey the Church than it was for centuries’ worth of families?

The Church has changes Her views on issues before, who is to say She won’t do it again?

The Church has changed matters of *discipline, *not matters of truth and reality.

Well, I realize you may not even read this, but perhaps it will help someone else

 

[Sy_Noe]

I agree completely.

Me too.

 

[OurLadysServant]

Surely you understand God created intercourse for creation of children as its main goal, even Lutheranism teaches that, and blocking this deliberately without medical reasons renders the act a completely carnal act for personal impure self gratification with a spouse. Whats the difference between it and masturbation, contraception or sodomy ?

You agree that sodomy and masturbation are carnal acts that deny life and against God’s natural law for intercourse which is for procreation as it’s main purpos.

Pulling out, sodomy, masturbation, and contraception are all acts that deny life and for that reason are completely carnal. Carnality is mentioned as one of the sins that will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but “The carnal minded will be cast into the outer fire where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

How can denying life on any occasion ever be morally correct?

 

[Thorolfr]

Surely you understand God created intercourse for creation of children as its main goal, even Lutheranism teaches that, and blocking this deliberately without medical reasons renders the act a completely carnal act for personal impure self gratification with a spouse. Whats the difference between it and masturbation, contraception or sodomy ? Both acts deny life.
How can denying life ever be morally correct?

So would it be wrong for two old married people to have sex since they cannot have children and it would therefore be a completely carnal act?

 

[OurLadysServant]

So would it be wrong for two old married people to have sex since they cannot have children and it would therefore be a completely carnal act?

I quoted the Church’s teaching as when its not on medical grounds.

When its deliberate.

If its unintended infertility thats not deliberate. Also because Elizabeth concieved in her old age, miracles can happen.

To deliberately block life though under the three conditions is carnal, and a mortal sin

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I quoted the Church’s teaching as when its not on medical grounds.

When its deliberate.

If its unintended infertility thats not deliberate. Also because Elizabeth concieved in her old age, miracles can happen.

To deliberately block life though under the three conditions is carnal, and a mortal sin

Elizabeth conceiving in her old age was actually in her early forties. She was not post menopause.

Sexual intercourse between a man and woman is primarily for creating new life, but also for the unitive expression of love for each other.

So, there is nothing wrong when a married couple have sex with no possibility of creating new life.

Jim

 

[OurLadysServant]

Elizabeth conceiving in her old age was actually in her early forties. She was not post menopause.

Sexual intercourse between a man and woman is primarily for creating new life, but also for the unitive expression of love for each other.

So, there is nothing wrong when a married couple have sex with no possibility of creating new life.

Jim

Yes that is the church teaching.

But they must not deliberately block life with this.

They must still be open to a miracle of life.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Yes that is the church teaching.

But they must not deliberately block life with this.

They must still be open to a miracle of life.

Well that’s kinda silly though when it comes to reality.

Sure, a woman who’s had a hysterectomy is open to life when having sexual relations with her husband, but that’s like a person with one leg being open to growing a new one. It just ain’t gonna happen.

Jim

 

[St_Francis]

So would it be wrong for two old married people to have sex since they cannot have children and it would therefore be a completely carnal act?

The fact that they cannot have children is not the result of some action they take or have taken, so it is fine for them to engage in the marital act.

Nor do we believe that the marital act is reduced to being “completely carnal” in the absence of fertility—the marital embrace is also a re-giving of the spouses to each other. We are body *and soul, *after all.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Sexual intercourse between a man and woman has a unitive effect which can not be experience by same sex couples.

It is why the act must be within the context of marriage where love is expressed to each other in a way the unites them as one.

Children that may result are the fruit of that expression of love.

Jim

 

[OurLadysServant]

-]/-]

Sexual intercourse between a man and woman has a unitive effect which can not be experience by same sex couples.

It is why the act must be within the context of marriage where love is expressed to each other in a way the unites them as one.

Children that may result are the fruit of that expression of love.

Jim

Quotes on Roman Catholic Church teaching that EVERY act of intercourse MUST be open to childbirth (even if the couple are infertile, or at an infertile time) and that blocking this is an intrinsic evil, because intercourse though its a union, must ALWAYS be procreative each time

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."152 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."153

2369 "By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s exalted vocation to parenthood."157

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:159

This last quote above says if you anticipate the end of an intimate act and “pull out” - that you are using a natural means to render procreation impossible in that particular act, and that this is intrinsically evil.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

-]/-]

Quotes on Roman Catholic Church teaching that EVERY act of intercourse MUST be open to childbirth (even if the couple are infertile, or at an infertile time) and that blocking this is an intrinsic evil, because intercourse though its a union, must ALWAYS be procreative each time

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."152 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."153

2369 "By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s exalted vocation to parenthood."157

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:159

Yeah I know, but it makes no sense. The teaching probably comes from the days they knew little about how ovulation and conception take place.

Jim

 

[Busy_sleeper]

The fact that they cannot have children is not the result of some action they take or have taken, so it is fine for them to engage in the marital act.

Nor do we believe that the marital act is reduced to being “completely carnal” in the absence of fertility—the marital embrace is also a re-giving of the spouses to each other. We are body *and soul, *after all.

I know I said that was probably my last post, but you are now starting to argue my point.

If the only reason that “pulling out” reduces the marital act to carnal is that it is not open to life. Then why is it still acceptable for a couple, one of which has been sterilized (not for medical reasons) and has received forgiveness, to continue to have intercourse and receive communion? Why not require a reversal of the procedure? Because if they were truly sorry for having had this done shouldn’t they be open to not making every act just carnal.

And if, for some medical reason, a woman has had a hysterectomy, is it acceptable for her husband to “pull out” for the sake of her comfort?

 

[OurLadysServant]

Yeah I know, but it makes no sense. The teaching probably comes from the days they knew little about how ovulation and conception take place.

Jim

Nope. This is from 1992.
And it was updated only last year for ypung adults to read.
So its CURRENT teaching TODAY.

Blessed Pope John Paul II ordered the Catechism to be written and Cardinal Ratzinger was bishop who oversaw it with other bishops.

Blessed Pope John Paul II said; “I put my Apostolic Authority on this work.”

Does it not make sense that each intercourse act must be procreative as well as unitive in intention? God’s natural law. Union of spouses in hope of children.