Dealing with criticism in my parish community when discussing infertility treatment

[jmcrae]

It was not active in South America for 1800 years, but from the time of founding until 1965 it was of the mind that slavery was an acceptable practice. It began profiteering and using the enslaved native population of south america pretty much as soon as it landed there.

Missionaries of the Catholic Church, with the approval of the Pope, were baptizing aboriginal peoples precisely in order to prevent them from being enslaved - it was always illegal to enslave Christians, and it has always been understood in the Catholic Church that Baptism makes you Christian.

The Spanish and/or Portuguese government(s) are not “the Church,” nor have they ever been agents of the Church.

 

[Viewer]

Missionaries of the Catholic Church, with the approval of the Pope, were baptizing aboriginal peoples precisely in order to prevent them from being enslaved - it was always illegal to enslave Christians, and it has always been understood in the Catholic Church that Baptism makes you Christian.

The Spanish and/or Portuguese government(s) are not “the Church,” nor have they ever been agents of the Church.

That would be more comforting to hear, but do you have any sources on this? From my understanding of slavery while it was encouraged to treat christian slaves well it was still perfectly allowed to keep them. I can think of examples of it a couple of centuries after the conquistadors.

They might not be the Church, but they (especially during Isabella’s time) enjoyed papal endorsement of their efforts. I think for Isabella it was even required.

 

[Rau]

It’s not selective at all, in the same way you can’t be a “little bit” pregnant. You either support the death penalty or you do not, the Catholic Church clearly does and has actively employed it during the times in history when it has wielded considerably more temporal authority than it does now.

The only reason it doesn’t actively support and promote these views today is because people today would be appalled by them.

I don’t know why you think that. You’d have to take the view that the Church supports killing too, whereas that’s not quite the right explanation to describe valid self-defence options.

Can you find support for your points in the Catechism, or do you find the opposite?

Your second sentence is conjecture.

 

[Rau]

If you do not condemn it you imply there are times where it can be applied.

If there are any occasions that it can be applied, that means you think the death penalty should be carried out.

If you believe that, then you also agree there is a need for capital punishment. Much of the western world (especially Europe) has come to the conclusion there are no occasions where it may be applied, in contrast to the Catholic Church.

This is almost correct! We’ve come to the conclusion that, In THE PRESENT TIMES, there are no occasions where capital punishment is required fro the protection of the people… The Church concurs.

 

[jmcrae]

That would be more comforting to hear, but do you have any sources on this? From my understanding of slavery while it was encouraged to treat christian slaves well it was still perfectly allowed to keep them. I can think of examples of it a couple of centuries after the conquistadors.

Do you think the Conquistadors were considered agents of the Church?

My source isn’t very scholarly - it’s The Mission by Robert Bolt - but I am given to understand that the story is based on real events and the real conditions that existed at that time.

How about you - what is your source for saying that Isabella was being endorsed by the Pope to enslave the peoples of the Americas (rather than to expand commerce or explore the world)?

 

[EasterJoy]

Because once they’re implanted, that’s what they are- a human embryo.

Technically they’re a human blastocyst at the stage of development of transfer, but that’s just splicing hairs.

After 8 weeks of gestation they are a human fetus.

After 40 weeks of an uncomplicated pregnancy, it is a human newborn.

Just like you wouldn’t call an acorn an oak tree, a human zygote, blastocyst, or embryo is developmentally different than a baby. They’re all human, but they’re at different stages of growth.

Why call humans “infants, toddlers, preschoolers, teenagers, adults, or seniors?” It’s a description of a developmental level or age.

I thought your question was how to keep people from reminding you that the teaching of the Church concerning your personal problems is different from what you want to think and do about them. Your goal seems to be to be able to tell a bunch of Catholics in a Catholic setting that you have abandoned your intention to follow Church teaching, and what you really seem to want to know is how to get them to give you validation for what you plan to do. That is not going to happen, or let us hope it doesn’t.

The answer to your original question is to refrain from going into a group gathered for the purpose of mutual teaching, admonishment, and advancement in the Catholic faith and dropping the bombshell that you don’t intend to follow the teachings of the Church because you think you know better. That’s going to net you arguments, corrections, and encouragement to change your mind. That is what we are supposed to do for each other in that context! If this thread does not prove my point, I do not know what will.

If you don’t want corrections, then don’t tell people with any duty to offer correction that you hold what you know very well that they hold to be incorrect beliefs. Otherwise, there is no help for you. You’re going to be corrected and they are going to defend the truth until you amend your thinking or learn to keep it to yourself. That’s reality, and all this “I have nothing to be ashamed of” rationalization is not going to change that. If you won’t accept that for some reason, then for mercy’s sake be willing take the consequences without complaint! You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

 

[april32010]

I thought your question was how to keep people from reminding you that the teaching of the Church concerning your personal problems is different from what you want to think and do about them. Your goal seems to be to be able to tell a bunch of Catholics in a Catholic setting that you have abandoned your intention to follow Church teaching, and what you really seem to want to know is how to get them to give you validation for what you plan to do. That is not going to happen, or let us hope it doesn’t.

The answer to your original question is to refrain from going into a group gathered for the purpose of mutual teaching, admonishment, and advancement in the Catholic faith and dropping the bombshell that you don’t intend to follow the teachings of the Church because you think you know better. That’s going to net you arguments, corrections, and encouragement to change your mind. That is what we are supposed to do for each other in that context! If this thread does not prove my point, I do not know what will.

If you don’t want corrections, then don’t tell people with any duty to offer correction that you hold what you know very well that they hold to be incorrect beliefs. Otherwise, there is no help for you. You’re going to be corrected and they are going to defend the truth until you amend your thinking or learn to keep it to yourself. That’s reality, and all this “I have nothing to be ashamed of” rationalization is not going to change that. If you won’t accept that for some reason, then for mercy’s sake be willing take the consequences without complaint! You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

:tiphat::clapping::clapping::clapping: :clapping: :clapping::clapping::tiphat:

 

[Viewer]

This is almost correct! We’ve come to the conclusion that, In THE PRESENT TIMES, there are no occasions where capital punishment is required fro the protection of the people… The Church concurs.

Until it comes out and formally condemns it as it did with slavery in 1965…No it does not. The old teachings are still standing and the death penalty remains a common support point for the center right (the side that the Church tends to side with and/or sponsor).

Do you think the Conquistadors were considered agents of the Church?

My source isn’t very scholarly - it’s The Mission by Robert Bolt - but I am given to understand that the story is based on real events and the real conditions that existed at that time.

How about you - what is your source for saying that Isabella was being endorsed by the Pope to enslave the peoples of the Americas (rather than to expand commerce or explore the world)?

Oh…Scholarly or not that doesn’t matter, I’m genuinely curious for any information on the subject!

As for proof on the public internet…let me see…

In 1493, in the wake of Christopher Columbus’ epochal discoveries, and at the request of Ferdinand and Isabella, Alexander issued a bull granting Spain the exclusive right to explore the seas and claim all New World lands lying west of a north-south line 100 leagues (about 320 miles) west of the Cape Verde Islands. Portugal was granted similar rights of exploration east of the demarcation line. This papal disposition, which was never subsequently recognized by any other European power, was jointly amended by Spain and Portugal in the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494.

britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/14138/Alexander-VI

These dispositions (namely the Romanus Pontifex and Dum Diversas but supported by a few others en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_slavery) granted Spain and Portugal essentially the rights of life and death over all the natives, which eventually culminated in the practice of a form of peonage, essentially an even lower form of slavery than was practiced in Classical Rome en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peon).

I do know of a few journal articles but I don’t think I can share the subscription rights to read them online. Alexander and the Church of the day was happy to let Spain and Portugal have these rights because the political climate of the day required the support of a strong staunchly Catholic ally (and they didn’t come more devout than Isabella and Ferdinand’s newly formed Spain) and the profits gained from Portugals efforts weren’t anything to be sneered at either.

In other words, the Church profited financially from the expeditions and happily approved of the practice (which it now condemns) to further it’s own temporal ends (the strengthening and expansion of the Papal State at the expense of unknown numbers of Native Mesoamericans).

There were a few Clerics over the years later on such as Bartholemew La Casa who did try and stop the further enslavement and subjugation of the natives but this was the exception rather than the rule, the higher ups were perfectly happy with the state of affairs.

 

[jmcrae]

Until it comes out and formally condemns it as it did with slavery in 1965…No it does not. The old teachings are still standing and the death penalty remains a common support point for the center right (the side that the Church tends to side with and/or sponsor).

Oh…Scholarly or not that doesn’t matter, I’m genuinely curious for any information on the subject!

As for proof on the public internet…let me see…

britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/14138/Alexander-VI

These dispositions (namely the Romanus Pontifex and Dum Diversas but supported by a few others en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_slavery) granted Spain and Portugal essentially the rights of life and death over all the natives, which eventually culminated in the practice of a form of peonage, essentially an even lower form of slavery than was practiced in Classical Rome en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peon).

I do know of a few journal articles but I don’t think I can share the subscription rights to read them online.

And you’re sure that was the result that the Pope intended? Because the missionaries on the ground seem not to have thought so. The case I’m more familiar with, being in Canada, is when missionaries first came to Canada - not to enslave the natives, but to give them the benefits of Christianity, and to save them from slave traders and whiskey traders, who were also coming at the same time. The Pope gave the whole country to France, but no one working for the Church thought that he intended for them to enslave the aboriginal peoples, but rather, to “Christianize” them.

 

[Viewer]

And you’re sure that was the result that the Pope intended?

I…Don’t see how he could have really made a mistake about it. He surely wasn’t so naive to think the Spanish were going over there to make freinds and daisy chains with the locals did he?

I’m sure the tithes collected from the expeditions had to give him a few hints too that something was making a lot of money (not to mention the huge numbers of clergy who went over to the new world too who would have reported to Rome).

Because the missionaries on the ground seem not to have thought so. The case I’m more familiar with, being in Canada, is when missionaries first came to Canada - not to enslave the natives, but to give them the benefits of Christianity, and to save them from slave traders and whiskey traders, who were also coming at the same time. The Pope gave the whole country to France, but no one working for the Church thought that he intended for them to enslave the aboriginal peoples, but rather, to “Christianize” them.

I must confess I don’t know as great a deal about the French missions, I only know of the Mesoamerican ones due to some research I did a few years ago.

I have to wonder though if again the church leadership was really that naieve, they had already raked in the rewards from Spain and Portugals efforts and what that entailed, so surely they must have known the French had something similar in mind?

But on this line of thought as a slight tangent…Why was the Church “giving” countries and swathes of people/slaves to other states anyway? It may have been normal for the time, but I bet we’d hear some outcry today if Francis decided to…I don’t know, give Argentina the Falklands or Antarctica to Uganda. Another change in church policy, one which I didn’t intend to stumble upon

 

[Rau]

Until it comes out and formally condemns it as it did with slavery in 1965…No it does not. The old teachings are still standing and the death penalty remains a common support point for the center right (the side that the Church tends to side with and/or sponsor).

Do you find what is stated in the Catechism on this subject satisfactory?

 

[jmcrae]

I…Don’t see how he could have really made a mistake about it. He surely wasn’t so naive to think the Spanish were going over there to make freinds and daisy chains with the locals did he?

I’m sure the tithes collected from the expeditions had to give him a few hints too that something was making a lot of money (not to mention the huge numbers of clergy who went over to the new world too who would have reported to Rome).

I must confess I don’t know as great a deal about the French missions, I only know of the Mesoamerican ones due to some research I did a few years ago.

I have to wonder though if again the church leadership was really that naieve, they had already raked in the rewards from Spain and Portugals efforts and what that entailed, so surely they must have known the French had something similar in mind?

But on this line of thought as a slight tangent…Why was the Church “giving” countries and swathes of people/slaves to other states anyway? It may have been normal for the time, but I bet we’d hear some outcry today if Francis decided to…I don’t know, give Argentina the Falklands or Antarctica to Uganda. Another change in church policy, one which I didn’t intend to stumble upon

I don’t know at all why they did that, nor why they stopped.

What I do know (getting back on topic) is that IVF will always be contrary to the moral law, unless there is some way to make it both unitive and open to life, as well as involving the wife and husband together, without any outside parties involved.

Since that seems physically impossible, I’m not expecting any change on this teaching within my own lifetime.

 

[BellsMom]

If you don’t want corrections, then don’t tell people with any duty to offer correction that you hold what you know very well that they hold to be incorrect beliefs. Otherwise, there is no help for you. You’re going to be corrected and they are going to defend the truth until you amend your thinking or learn to keep it to yourself. That’s reality, and all this “I have nothing to be ashamed of” rationalization is not going to change that. If you won’t accept that for some reason, then for mercy’s sake be willing take the consequences without complaint! You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

I think this really says it best.

What a strange OP and thread.

 

[Mayita30]

I think this really says it best.

What a strange OP and thread.

I agree.

 

[Mayita30]

people have their own suffering and trial like I have mine with my annulment but I don’t go around bashing the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding marriage. I choose to do the right thing which is to wait for an annulment. I do suffer silently and not talk about my situation. It is a heavy cross but I always think that this is the CROSS that Jesus gave me in this world.

 

[UnCatholicBride]

Just an interesting thought that I had.

How is it that a couple who is having intercourse and avoiding their fertile window (therefore having NO chance of conceiving) any more “open to life” than a couple using a condom.

Scientifically speaking, you have a 48-72 hour window in which to have intercourse that would result in conception. If you’re using “natural family planning” to avoid that window, you’re no more open to life than someone using birth control or a condom…

Actually I’d say that someone having sex during their fertile window while using a condom is actually MORE open to life as the failure of a condom in the fertile window would result in a 20% chance of pregnancy, where abstinence in the fertile window would result in a 0% chance of pregnancy even if they had unprotected sex the rest of the month.

Sex between my husband and I will never be procreative. It is scientifically impossible for us to conceive without assistance. Therefore we’re damned if we do, and damned if we don’t.

So while all of the “good little catholics” get past the man-made demand to not use birth control by avoiding their fertile window, my husband and I will rely on the advances in scientific technology that God has made possible in order to grow our family.

 

[Viewer]

Just an interesting thought that I had.

How is it that a couple who is having intercourse and avoiding their fertile window (therefore having NO chance of conceiving) any more “open to life” than a couple using a condom.

Scientifically speaking, you have a 48-72 hour window in which to have intercourse that would result in conception. If you’re using “natural family planning” to avoid that window, you’re no more open to life than someone using birth control or a condom…

Actually I’d say that someone having sex during their fertile window while using a condom is actually MORE open to life as the failure of a condom in the fertile window would result in a 20% chance of pregnancy, where abstinence in the fertile window would result in a 0% chance of pregnancy even if they had unprotected sex the rest of the month.

Sex between my husband and I will never be procreative. It is scientifically impossible for us to conceive without assistance. Therefore we’re damned if we do, and damned if we don’t.

So while all of the “good little catholics” get past the man-made demand to not use birth control by avoiding their fertile window, my husband and I will rely on the advances in scientific technology that God has made possible in order to grow our family.

I have to admit that even while I tried practicing it I always thought this about NFP.

 

[Mayita30]

Just an interesting thought that I had.

How is it that a couple who is having intercourse and avoiding their fertile window (therefore having NO chance of conceiving) any more “open to life” than a couple using a condom.

Scientifically speaking, you have a 48-72 hour window in which to have intercourse that would result in conception. If you’re using “natural family planning” to avoid that window, you’re no more open to life than someone using birth control or a condom…

Actually I’d say that someone having sex during their fertile window while using a condom is actually MORE open to life as the failure of a condom in the fertile window would result in a 20% chance of pregnancy, where abstinence in the fertile window would result in a 0% chance of pregnancy even if they had unprotected sex the rest of the month.

Sex between my husband and I will never be procreative. It is scientifically impossible for us to conceive without assistance. Therefore we’re damned if we do, and damned if we don’t.

So while all of the “good little catholics” get past the man-made demand to not use birth control by avoiding their fertile window, my husband and I will rely on the advances in scientific technology that God has made possible in order to grow our family.

OP, why are you categorizing that you and your husband will never be procreative.
Did you just read what I wrote. I said I had a friend who was in a 10 year marriage and could not have kids. She decided to adopt. After 1 year of adopting, she became pregnant naturally AT THE AGE OF 43. Now she has 2 baby girls…

It is not us that control our lives.

 

[Mayita30]

Just an interesting thought that I had.

How is it that a couple who is having intercourse and avoiding their fertile window (therefore having NO chance of conceiving) any more “open to life” than a couple using a condom.

Scientifically speaking, you have a 48-72 hour window in which to have intercourse that would result in conception. If you’re using “natural family planning” to avoid that window, you’re no more open to life than someone using birth control or a condom…

Actually I’d say that someone having sex during their fertile window while using a condom is actually MORE open to life as the failure of a condom in the fertile window would result in a 20% chance of pregnancy, where abstinence in the fertile window would result in a 0% chance of pregnancy even if they had unprotected sex the rest of the month.

Sex between my husband and I will never be procreative. It is scientifically impossible for us to conceive without assistance. Therefore we’re damned if we do, and damned if we don’t.

So while all of the “good little catholics” get past the man-made demand to not use birth control by avoiding their fertile window, my husband and I will rely on the advances in scientific technology that God has made possible in order to grow our family.

You are still open to life because you are not applying anything ARTIFICIAL to something that is NATURAL…the gift of sex

 

[Judas_The_Rock]

OP, why are you categorizing that you and your husband will never be procreative.
Did you just read what I wrote. I said I had a friend who was in a 10 year marriage and could not have kids. She decided to adopt. After 1 year of adopting, she became pregnant naturally AT THE AGE OF 43. Now she has 2 baby girls…

It is not us that control our lives.

I agree. Op is in fact Baby killer. This is clearly Satan’s influence along with the LAMEstream media.