Diversity of thought

[Abu]

thinkandmull #36
Finally, how can you say Galileo “was wrong in his interpretation of the Bible”? You must believe in geocentrism then.

Galileo was wrong in his interpretation of the Bible.

“In the fourth century, St. Augustine had counseled his fellow Christians to read the scriptures to find spiritual truths – not matters of natural science. Galileo should have heeded this advice of thirteen centuries before, instead of asserting that the Bible was in error – in particular Joshua 10.13 “Sun and Moon stood still”. We will agree with Galileo’s own statement, “Holy writ is intended to teach men how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go” just as we would agree also with Cardinal Bellarmine’s reply, “If there is contradiction between the Bible and observed facts, let us say we have misunderstood the Bible rather than pronounce false what is demonstrated”. It was this over-literal interpretation of the language of the Bible that caused Galileo’s trouble.”
From: Science and the Church
Rev. Bro. Dr. V. McKenna, B.A., M.Sc., Ph.D.
An edited version of an address given by Rev. Bro. Dr. McKenna at the University of W.A., June, 1964

 

[Abu]

Thinkandmull #39
Pius XI just stated what he thought on contraception.

The falsehoods are endless, and the ignorance once again demonstrated – see posts #38 & 35 for the definitive condemnation of contraception: NOTE – AFTER the Anglican Lambeth Conference of 1930 had broken the total Protestant denunciation against contraception, up to that time.

Pius XII gave encyclicals as an example of fallible authority in Humani Generis.

Wrong, again.

From Humani Generis, Pius XII:
‘20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.’ [My emphasis].
w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

Thus no dissent is allowed, but the unthinking are unable to see the wood for the trees.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

…The way a planet moves in the sky is not in the theological realm of the Catholic Church no matter how many writers say it is…

What about the way a baby moves out of the womb?

Many would say this natural phenomenon is exactly what is at stake in the more recently down-played yet constantly held full doctrine of the Virgin Birth.

That is, amongst other things, that baby Jesus did not pass down the birth canal but was born in some strange way like Buddha passing directly through Mary’s abdominal wall.

You won’t find that detail clearly stated in the latest CCC - but that is the official Church Teaching.

Maybe, like geo-centralism, the “snow job” rationalisation that it was never really a doctrine of the Church hasn’t quite completed yet!

Like ThinkaMull I find easy revisionism of insupportable doctrines of the past by reason of “never were doctrine” explanations a less than satisfactory recognition of the complexity of the issue.

 

[thinkandmull]

The falsehoods are endless, and the ignorance once again demonstrated – see posts #38 & 35 for the definitive condemnation of contraception: NOTE – AFTER the Anglican Lambeth Conference of 1930 had broken the total Protestant denunciation against contraception, up to that time.
Wrong, again.

From Humani Generis, Pius XII:
‘20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.’ [My emphasis].
w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

Thus no dissent is allowed, but the unthinking are unable to see the wood for the trees.

Pius XI didn’t say his statement on contraception was for all people, for all time. He did say it was infallible, nor did he use the word “define”. So how can you say for sure it is infallible?

As for Humani Generis, that is a fallible document saying that a fallible document is binding. I respect Popes ideas on issues, but it must be admitted that it hasn’t been infallibly defined that the Popes can bind us to their opinions on theology

And you are one to speak, ignoring what Popes said in the past on geocentrism

 

[thinkandmull]

Let try to be respectful

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Pius XI didn’t say his statement on contraception was for all people, for all time. He did say it was infallible, nor did he use the word “define”. So how can you say for sure it is infallible?

As for Humani Generis, that is a fallible document saying that a fallible document is binding. I respect Popes ideas on issues, but it must be admitted that it hasn’t been infallibly defined that the Popes can bind us to their opinions on theology

And you are one to speak, ignoring what Popes said in the past on geocentrism

I believe this is a balanced approach.
It is often stated that HG “banned” contraception which is I think correct.

That is, further unhelpful incendiary debate by Catholic theologians on the issue was explicitly halted by the Pope.
The laity were also banned from using contraceptives as a matter of discipline.
Sure, the laity had to consent to implementing the discipline…but assent to the alleged “doctrine” as well … that is far from clear.

This much is certain.

However it is drawing a very long bow indeed to further hold that HG infallibly defined a corresponding doctrine. (And how could the CDF quietly allow Congo Nuns to take contraceptives in anticipation of rape if this was a black and white doctrinal teaching).

 

[Abu]

thinkandmull #43
Pius XI didn’t say his statement on contraception was for all people, for all time.

Yet again, totally ignoring the facts. No doctrine or dogma from any Pope ever does, or needs to, state that the doctrine or dogma is “for all people, for all time.” A doctrine or dogma is perpetual, unlike a disciplinary decree.

He did say it was infallible, nor did he use the word “define”. So how can you say for sure it is infallible?

Until you listen to the Church and eliminate the errors in your feelings and your thought, you will not know what the Church is teaching or be able to believe Her teaching.

So once again:
No dogma has to be affirmed, nor anyone anathematized, nor the word “define” or “definition” be used for an infallible papal teaching – only that the Pope is handing down a certain, decisive judgment that a point of doctrine on faith or morals is true and its contrary false.

As for Humani Generis, that is a fallible document saying that a fallible document is binding.

See post #41, and once again, no document is infallible – it is high time to learn that.

Secondly, real Catholics believe and follow Pope Pius XII’s statement no. 20. in Humani Generis, shown in Post #41 exercising his ordinary teaching authority which you seem to denigrate, which is ‘For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth Me” ’ [Christ’s own words].

 

[Abu]

Blue Horizon #45
The laity were also banned from using contraceptives as a matter of discipline.

The teaching against contraception was never a “discipline”. In fact, Casti Connubii of Pope Pius IX, 1930, infallibly condemned contraception (#56) “as any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”

Further, this was after the capitulation by the Anglicans at the Lambeth Conference of 1930, against the total ban on contraception by all sects up to that time. The weakening reason and faith which resulted in the Anglican capitulation in 1930 at the Lambeth Conference is salutary because, before that, 99 Protestant theologians had taught against Onanism; Martin Luther, John Wesley and John Calvin were opposed to artificial birth control. They taught that it was very immoral. Many Protestant theologians were strongly opposed to it from the beginning of the Protestant Revolt. (Charles D Provan, The Bible and Birth Control, Zimmer printing, 1989, p 63).

(And how could the CDF quietly allow Congo Nuns to take contraceptives in anticipation of rape if this was a black and white doctrinal teaching).

This was discussed in June 2013 in the thread May contraception be counselled in some cases, and you were informed clearly as follows:
“A condom in rape is “morally irrelevant”. It’s not technical it is moral. A condom is not “evil”. The use of a condom in marriage is intrinsically wrong because the intention is to thwart the procreative end of the marital act in marriage.

“Obviously the tapestry of morality as taught and lived by real Catholics means that the only possibility of endeavouring to prevent conception is in the case of rape in which the only moral action to prevent the consequences is to put a barrier to prevent fertilization.

“Thus there are no situations in which “contraception” may be advised except in such a case, and any chemicals or actions which might result in an abortion should be excluded. So the feeling that something that can cause an abortion is to be recommended is contrary to reality, and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has not promoted condom mania re HIV concerning prostitutes.”

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Quote:
(And how could the CDF quietly allow Congo Nuns to take contraceptives in anticipation of rape if this was a black and white doctrinal teaching).

You will have to forgive me if I don’t regard CF threads as authoritative - what exactly is the point you are making?

I don’t see how “condom rape” is relevant - the Nuns made use of the pill with contraceptive intent. Sounds like clear and present contraceptive moral acts to me.

 

[Abu]

Blue Horizon #48
the Nuns made use of the pill with contraceptive intent.

The reality: the reference to the possible use of “Contraceptive Pills” in the 1960’s for nuns threatened by rape reflects a poor understanding at that time that such Pills often cause an embryo to be aborted.

“The Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life condemns the morning-after pill and makes no exceptions for cases of rape treatment, whether or not conception/fertilization has occurred. The academy goes so far as to say that this pill represents a good example of the absolute unlawfulness of any drug that has the potential to be an abortive agent. The academy makes it perfectly clear that anyone who is an agent in the provision of this drug is morally responsible for the outcome.”
May 3, 2007
renewamerica.com/columns/brown/070503

Sounds like clear and present contraceptive moral acts to me.

As my comments made crystal clear:
“Obviously the tapestry of morality as taught and lived by real Catholics means that the only possibility of endeavouring to prevent conception is in the case of rape in which the only moral action to prevent the consequences is to put a barrier to prevent fertilization.

“Thus there are no situations in which “contraception” may be advised except in such a case, and any chemicals or actions which might result in an abortion should be excluded.”

Similarly, the use of a condom in homosexual acts is clearly shown also, by Dr Janet Smith, as not involving a moral wrong by condom use:
tinyurl.com/24dzohf
Dr Janet E. Smith:
“The Church has no formal teaching about how to reduce the evil of intrinsically immoral action. We must note that what is intrinsically wrong in a homosexual sexual act in which a condom is used is not the moral wrong of contraception but the homosexual act itself.”
[Dr. Janet E. Smith holds the Father Michael J. McGivney Chair of Life Ethics at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit].

Posters need to know what the Church actually teaches to avoid such errors and to understand the evil of contraception to prevent conception within marriage for which God has provided the vast majority of females with lengthy infertile periods, and mankind with the intelligence to use them wisely in keeping with His Catholic Church’s authorised teaching.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Blue Horizon #48
the Nuns made use of the pill with contraceptive intent.

What exactly is the relevance to my observation Abu?

The Nuns asked if they could use the Pill regularly before the terrorists reached there village - not afterwards. That is contraceptive intent isn’t it? No one is suggesting they had abortive intent.

And the Vatican authority made no objection when asked to respond by the Congregation of Nuns concerned.

An allegedly infallibly defined “always evil” doctrinal Teaching only needs one approved exception to suggest the possibility this is not the case and may be more about a discipline … and that the doctrine, while true in most cases, may have exceptions.

I am not saying this is the case, but it looks that way here.

Unless of course the non-infallible Vatican officials concerned gave the Nuns incorrect advice.

 

[Abu]

Blue Horizon #50
The Nuns asked if they could use the Pill regularly before the terrorists reached there village - not afterwards. That is contraceptive intent isn’t it? No one is suggesting they had abortive intent.

Naturally the aim was to prevent conception against a heinous act – rape is never a proper marital act and, as considered here, is outside of marriage.

Dr Jeff Mirus comments:
“Outside of marriage, sexual relations are already disordered. They have no proper ends and so the frustration of these ends through contraception is intrinsically morally irrelevant.”
catholicculture.org/comme…les.cfm?id=179

In the early sixties the abortive effects of the Pill were not clearly known, and *Humanae Vitae *was not issued until 1968.

An allegedly infallibly defined “always evil” doctrinal Teaching only needs one approved exception to suggest the possibility this is not the case and may be more about a discipline … and that the doctrine, while true in most cases, may have exceptions.

Thus the rationale of contraception is the interference with MARITAL intercourse – the positive frustration of conception in the performance of the MARITAL ACT. That is why *Humanae Vitae *is spot on, issued after exhaustive examination of the issue, and the attempt to hold the Church’s teaching up to doubt scurrilous.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Naturally the aim was to prevent conception against a heinous act – rape is never a proper marital act and, as considered here, is outside of marriage.

We have to be careful not to mislead Catholics that our own side of a debated issue is the only acceptable interpretation.

And it is debated as to whether or not the Church’s teaching on contracepting is only valid for validly married couples… Or holds for adulterers and fornicaters
also.

The ambiguity seems to lie with the expression “matrimonial act.”
Is this merely the Vatican’ standard euphemism for sexual intercourse (by anyone)… Or is it limiting things just to sex within marriage?
I know of no definitive magisterial response to this ambiguity.
If you can find a clear and direct Magisterial resolution that would be helpful.

Even if your view were correct, contracepting amongst the non married has not been settled then it seems

Which is pretty much what some of us here are saying about the Church’s non infallible stance on contraception anyhow. Which suggests you in fact agree with absence of infallible teaching re contraceptive acts outside of marriage.

Which makes the Pope’s views on the possible acceptability of contracepting outside of marriage as a first step towards responsible morality much more understandable. Such contracepting even while fornicating may not only NOT be an additional mortal sin… It may in some way be good.

 

[Abu]

Blue Horizon #52
The ambiguity seems to lie with the expression “matrimonial act.”

There is no ambiguity in the Church’s teaching, only in those choosing to feel that way.

There is no “matrimonial act” outside of marriage – there is only fornication and adultery as De Margerie comments:
De Margerie observes that "every matrimonial act should be ‘intrinsically’ ordered to life, to the transmission of life, even if in actual fact, owing to an accidental and extrinsic reason, it must remain barren."10 A conjugal act that respects the gift of fertility, of procreativity, is one that is intrinsically open to the transmission of life, even if conception, as a physical event, does not take place or cannot take place because of sterility resulting from “natural rhythms” or age or disease.

Pope Paul VI and the Church teach firmly that the contraceptive choice is intrinsically disordered. To choose to act in this way is to choose to act against something really good, and good not merely in an instrumental way but personally and humanly good. The procreative meaning of our sexuality and of the marital act is not a good of the biological order, subhuman and subpersonal in character, but is rather a good of the human person, a good participating in the goodness of the human person and of God, the author of our procreativity. The contraceptive choice is a choice to reject this good of the human person, of human sexuality, and of marriage.
Notes:
10. Bertrand de Margerie, S.J., “Reflections on Some Aspects of Humanae vitae To Which Less Consideration Has Been Given,” “Osservatore Romano;” English Edition May 25, 1978. See also Elisabeth Anscombe, *Contraception and Chastity *(London: Catholic Truth Society, 1976), pp. 20-23.

contracepting amongst the non married has not been settled then it seems
Which is pretty much what some of us here are saying about the Church’s non infallible stance on contraception anyhow. Which suggests you in fact agree with absence of infallible teaching re contraceptive acts outside of marriage.

Both *Casti Connubii *(1930) and Humanae Vitae (1968) condemn contraception infallibly.

Here, I think the following by Dr Jeff Mirus of Catholic Culture is helpful:
He states that while “many moralists have argued (I believe correctly) that contraception is morally neutral in itself when considered outside of marriage” he asserts that “even morally neutral acts can have good or bad consequences and should be selected or avoided accordingly.”

Dr Mirus explains that the bad consequences of contraception outside of marriage are:
“First, it engenders a casual attitude toward sexual relations. This clearly contributes to the rise of casual sex, and the rise of casual sex has enormous implications for psychological and emotional well-being, personal and public health, and social cohesion.

“Second, it shifts the emphasis in sexual relations from fruitfulness to pleasure. By eliminating the possibility of new life and the permanent bonding it demands, contraception reduces the meaning of human sexuality to pleasure and, at best, a truncated or wounded sort of commitment. Moreover, if the meaning of human sexuality is primarily a meaning of pleasure, then any sexual act which brings pleasure is of equal value. It is no surprise that pornography and homosexuality have mushroomed, while marriage has declined, since the rise of the “contraceptive mentality”. Abortion too has skyrocketed as a backup procedure based on the expectation that contraception should render sex child-free. All of this, too, is psychologically, emotionally and physically damaging, as well as destructive of the social order.

“Outside of marriage, contraception is to be avoided for its consequences (consequences surely made worse by the difficulty of psychologically separating contraception from its marital meaning). But within marriage, the context changes and the act of contraception itself becomes intrinsically disordered.”

“The point to remember is that contraception is intrinsically evil only within marriage. Outside of marriage, sexual intercourse itself is intrinsically evil; outside of marriage, there is no marital act that must be kept open to life and love; outside of marriage, the morality of contraception must be determined on other grounds, namely extrinsic grounds.”
catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=179

The simple and loving way is to learn Natural Birth Regulation (NBR) usually called Natural Family Planning. We know also that this is moral for serious reasons, so anyone who supports condomistic intercourse is:

1. Unfaithful to Christ and His Church
2. Unreasonable and unfaithful to their spouse
3. Needs real help in understanding and the meaning of real love.

 

[Abu]

Blue Horizon #52
Which makes the Pope’s views on the possible acceptability of contracepting outside of marriage as a first step towards responsible morality much more understandable. Such contracepting even while fornicating may not only NOT be an additional mortal sin… It may in some way be good.

The death punishment upon Onan was not for his failure to raise up posterity for his deceased brother, but for the crime of wasting the seed upon the ground – a primitive and vulgar form of contraception.

Dr. Janet E. Smith at zenit.org/en/articles/benedict-xvi-condoms-and-the-light-of-the-world:
“We must note that the example that Pope Benedict gives for the use of a condom is a male prostitute; thus, it is reasonable to assume that he is referring to a male prostitute engaged in homosexual acts. The Holy Father is simply observing that for some homosexual prostitutes the use of a condom may indicate an awakening of a moral sense; an awakening that sexual pleasure is not the highest value, but that we must take care that we harm no one with our choices. He is not speaking to the morality of the use of a condom, but to something that may be true about the psychological state of those who use them. If such individuals are using condoms to avoid harming another, they may eventually realize that sexual acts between members of the same sex are inherently harmful since they are not in accord with human nature. The Holy Father does not in any way think the use of condoms is a part of the solution to reducing the risk of AIDS. As he explicitly states, the true solution involves “humanizing sexuality.”

“The Church has no formal teaching about how to reduce the evil of intrinsically immoral action. We must note that what is intrinsically wrong in a homosexual sexual act in which a condom is used is not the moral wrong of contraception but the homosexual act itself. In the case of homosexual sexual activity, a condom does not act as a contraceptive; it is not possible for homosexuals to contracept since their sexual activity has no procreative power that can be thwarted. But the Holy Father is not making a point about whether the use of a condom is contraceptive or even whether it reduces the evil of a homosexual sexual act; again, he is speaking about the psychological state of some who might use condoms. The intention behind the use of the condom (the desire not to harm another) may indicate some growth in a sense of moral responsibility.”
[Dr. Janet E. Smith holds the Father Michael J. McGivney Chair of Life Ethics at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit].

When the psychological state referred to in the Pope’s statement is confused with supposed approval of condom use, then virtually anything goes for the misguided.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The death punishment upon Onan was not for his failure to raise up posterity for his deceased brother, but for the crime of wasting the seed upon the ground – a primitive and vulgar form of contraception.

Dr. Janet E. Smith at zenit.org/en/articles/benedict-xvi-condoms-and-the-light-of-the-world:
“We must note that the example that Pope Benedict gives for the use of a condom is a male prostitute; thus, it is reasonable to assume that he is referring to a male prostitute engaged in homosexual acts. The Holy Father is simply observing that for some homosexual prostitutes the use of a condom may indicate an awakening of a moral sense; an awakening that sexual pleasure is not the highest value, but that we must take care that we harm no one with our choices. He is not speaking to the morality of the use of a condom, but to something that may be true about the psychological state of those who use them. If such individuals are using condoms to avoid harming another, they may eventually realize that sexual acts between members of the same sex are inherently harmful since they are not in accord with human nature. The Holy Father does not in any way think the use of condoms is a part of the solution to reducing the risk of AIDS. As he explicitly states, the true solution involves “humanizing sexuality.”

“The Church has no formal teaching about how to reduce the evil of intrinsically immoral action. We must note that what is intrinsically wrong in a homosexual sexual act in which a condom is used is not the moral wrong of contraception but the homosexual act itself. In the case of homosexual sexual activity, a condom does not act as a contraceptive; it is not possible for homosexuals to contracept since their sexual activity has no procreative power that can be thwarted. But the Holy Father is not making a point about whether the use of a condom is contraceptive or even whether it reduces the evil of a homosexual sexual act; again, he is speaking about the psychological state of some who might use condoms. The intention behind the use of the condom (the desire not to harm another) may indicate some growth in a sense of moral responsibility.”
[Dr. Janet E. Smith holds the Father Michael J. McGivney Chair of Life Ethics at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit].

When the psychological state referred to in the Pope’s statement is confused with supposed approval of condom use, then virtually anything goes for the misguided.

We can all cherry pick someone to interpret less than relevant. interpretations of the Pope to suit our own tastes.

How about just quoting something Papal that is clear and leave out all the spin?
As many “authorities” take both sides on this question I suggest you won’t find anything clear.

I am willing to be enlightened though.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

There is no ambiguity in the Church’s teaching, only in those choosing to feel that way.

There is no “matrimonial act” outside of marriage – there is only fornication and adultery as De Margerie comments:
De Margerie observes that "every matrimonial act should be ‘intrinsically’ ordered to life, to the transmission of life, even if in actual fact, owing to an accidental and extrinsic reason, it must remain barren."10 A conjugal act that respects the gift of fertility, of procreativity, is one that is intrinsically open to the transmission of life, even if conception, as a physical event, does not take place or cannot take place because of sterility resulting from “natural rhythms” or age or disease.

Pope Paul VI and the Church teach firmly that the contraceptive choice is intrinsically disordered. To choose to act in this way is to choose to act against something really good, and good not merely in an instrumental way but personally and humanly good. The procreative meaning of our sexuality and of the marital act is not a good of the biological order, subhuman and subpersonal in character, but is rather a good of the human person, a good participating in the goodness of the human person and of God, the author of our procreativity. The contraceptive choice is a choice to reject this good of the human person, of human sexuality, and of marriage.
Notes:
10. Bertrand de Margerie, S.J., “Reflections on Some Aspects of Humanae vitae To Which Less Consideration Has Been Given,” “Osservatore Romano;” English Edition May 25, 1978. See also Elisabeth Anscombe, *Contraception and Chastity *(London: Catholic Truth Society, 1976), pp. 20-23.
Both *Casti Connubii *(1930) and Humanae Vitae (1968) condemn contraception infallibly.

Here, I think the following by Dr Jeff Mirus of Catholic Culture is helpful:
He states that while “many moralists have argued (I believe correctly) that contraception is morally neutral in itself when considered outside of marriage” he asserts that “even morally neutral acts can have good or bad consequences and should be selected or avoided accordingly.”

Dr Mirus explains that the bad consequences of contraception outside of marriage are:
“First, it engenders a casual attitude toward sexual relations. This clearly contributes to the rise of casual sex, and the rise of casual sex has enormous implications for psychological and emotional well-being, personal and public health, and social cohesion.

“Second, it shifts the emphasis in sexual relations from fruitfulness to pleasure. By eliminating the possibility of new life and the permanent bonding it demands, contraception reduces the meaning of human sexuality to pleasure and, at best, a truncated or wounded sort of commitment. Moreover, if the meaning of human sexuality is primarily a meaning of pleasure, then any sexual act which brings pleasure is of equal value. It is no surprise that pornography and homosexuality have mushroomed, while marriage has declined, since the rise of the “contraceptive mentality”. Abortion too has skyrocketed as a backup procedure based on the expectation that contraception should render sex child-free. All of this, too, is psychologically, emotionally and physically damaging, as well as destructive of the social order.

“Outside of marriage, contraception is to be avoided for its consequences (consequences surely made worse by the difficulty of psychologically separating contraception from its marital meaning). But within marriage, the context changes and the act of contraception itself becomes intrinsically disordered.”

“The point to remember is that contraception is intrinsically evil only within marriage. Outside of marriage, sexual intercourse itself is intrinsically evil; outside of marriage, there is no marital act that must be kept open to life and love; outside of marriage, the morality of contraception must be determined on other grounds, namely extrinsic grounds.”
catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=179

The simple and loving way is to learn Natural Birth Regulation (NBR) usually called Natural Family Planning. We know also that this is moral for serious reasons, so anyone who supports condomistic intercourse is:

1. Unfaithful to Christ and His Church
2. Unreasonable and unfaithful to their spouse
3. Needs real help in understanding and the meaning of real love.

That’s an awful lot of very indirect 3rd party interpretation to explain the Pope is unambiguous.
Have another try.

Provide a Papal quote that clearly states the Church’s teaching on contraception is definitely aimed only at validly married couples…

I think you will find that many Catholics would hold that contraception even amongst the Remarried is not without Moral consequence.

 

[thinkandmull]

Abu, why are you citing Pius XI instead of Paul VI as infallible on contraception. People have this impression that pre-Vatican II documents are more certain because they are old and interesting. Anyway, there is no way to prove that Pius XI didn’t intend for it just to be a binding teaching for his pontificate, instead of an infallible teaching. There is simply no way to prove it.

Anyway, you were the one ignoring the previous Church teaching about geocentrism. Sounds like you pick and choose

“The death punishment upon Onan was not for his failure to raise up posterity for his deceased brother, but for the crime of wasting the seed upon the ground – a primitive and vulgar form of contraception.”

Again you are dogmatizing a personal interpretation. Onan did not fulfill his duty.

 

[thinkandmull]

Abu accused me of not being a realy catholic in this discussion: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=900054&page=2

I didn’t have the evidence at hand that I knew about on John Paul II’s decree on female priests. But I do now:

“It should be emphasized that the definitive and infallible nature of this teaching of the Church did **not **arise with the publication of the Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. In the Letter, as the Reply of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith also explains, the Roman Pontiff, having taken account of present circumstances, has confirmed the same teaching by a formal declaration, giving expression once again to quod semper, quod ubique et quod ab omnibus tenendum est, utpote ad fidei depositum pertinens. In this case, an act of the ordinary Papal Magisterium, in itself not infallible, witnesses to the infallibility of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church.”
ourladyswarriors.org/teach/ordisace3.htm

However, John Paul II used these words: “in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I** declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever **to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful”

That language is stronger than Pius XI’s or Paul VI’s on contraception. So again I ask Abu, if John Paul II’s declaration was not infallible, why are you sure that Pius XI’s encyclical was on contraception?

 

[Abu]

thinkandmull #57
there is no way to prove that Pius XI didn’t intend for it just to be a binding teaching for his pontificate, instead of an infallible teaching. There is simply no way to prove it.

There is NEVER a “teaching” – doctrine or dogma – on faith and morals made to the whole Church which is for a “pontificate” only – you have again shown your lack of knowledge of Catholic doctrine and dogma. See post #46 – that no dogma has to be affirmed, nor anyone anathematized, nor the word “define” or “definition” be used for an infallible papal teaching – only that the Pope is handing down a certain, decisive judgment that a point of doctrine on faith or morals is true and its contrary false.

Pius XI in Casti Connubii, refers to the “doctrine handed down from the beginning without interruption” which fact alone makes it an infallible teaching according to the “universality of time” which argument was used also by Pius XII for the dogma of Our Lady’s Assumption (1950).

Furthermore, it is infallible because of the “universality of the present” — because Vatican II declared unequivocally that “In questions of birth regulation, the sons of the Church, faithful to these principles, are forbidden to use methods disapproved of by the teaching authority of the Church in its interpretation of the divine law.” Gaudium et Spes, 51; footnote 14 refers to *Casti Connubii *and further teaching by Pius XI and Paul VI]. So the bishops of the Church in Ecumenical Council, approved by the Pope, give this teaching also.

In Evangelium Vitae, St John Paul II, 1995, reiterates: “It is therefore morally unacceptable to encourage, let alone impose, the use of methods such as contraception, sterilization and abortion in order to regulate births.” #91].

From EWTN Q&A: Answer by David Gregson on Nov-22-2002:
“You are correct in stating that **the Pope exercises his charism of infallibility not only in dogmatic definitions issued, ex cathedra, as divinely revealed (of which there have been only two), but also in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra, which would include **canonizations **(that they are in fact Saints, enjoying the Beatific Vision in heaven), moral teachings (such as contained in Humanae vitae), and other doctrines he has taught as necessarily connected with truths divinely revealed, such as that priestly ordination is reserved to men.” [My emphasis].

#58 if John Paul II’s declaration was not infallible, why are you sure that Pius XI’s encyclical was on contraception?

On *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis *(O.S.) of St John Paul II, as Fr Harrison points out, CDF statements are always non-infallible, and O.S. manifestly fulfils the conditions for an ex cathedra teaching.

Similarly, Fr G.H. Duggan, S.M., wrote in acknowledging the Holy Father’s personal infallibility in O.S.:
“I am afraid Father Crothers is mistaken in holding that when Pope John Paul II in his Apostolic Epistle Ordinatio Sacerdotalis declared that the Church has not the power to confer the Christian priesthood on any woman, he was not exercising his prerogative of personal infallibility.
“When the First Vatican Council defined the dogma of papal infallibility, it stated that for a papal statement to considered as infallible it must fulfill four conditions. It must concern: a matter of faith or morals; it must be definitive; it must be issued by the Pope as successor of St Peter as Head of the Church and its Supreme Teacher; it must be addressed to the whole Church, not just any part of it.

“It will be noted that these do not include an explicit statement by the Holy Father that he is exercising his prerogative of personal infallibility.”
FR G.H. DUGGAN SM
Upper Hutt, New Zealand
AD2000 Vol 16 No 5 (June 2003), p. 14

Fr Duggan is a renowned theologian, and the clarity of the dogma is once again acknowledged as encompassing the personal papal ex cathedra doctrine in O.S. explained in the simple requirements given in the dogma.
[My emphasis throughout].