Do you believe that practicing ABC is morally permissible? Answer if your Catholic only please.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Little_One0307
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t see how an informed and practicing Catholic could possibly believe ABCs are morally permissible and even use them. Such a belief has no basis in Church teaching.

I can’t vote on the issue, however, presumably because of my trial membership.
 
Little_One0307 said:
Infallible teaching is teaching that is Truth and has no error in it. It must be believed by Catholic and Divine Faith. If it cannot be believed in with this kind of faith, then it is not really infallible.

God bless.
Click to expand...
Little One

As you read the document from the CDF I posted you will find that yes something can be infallible and not require “the assent of theological faith”…it is important though to read the whole document ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM …it needs to be understood together…and then you see what the distinctions mean …it is not that it becomes open for rejection etc…or that one is not assenting…or that faith is in no way involved …etc
 
Bookcat said:
Such was his “theological opinion” at the time he wrote the article…
Click to expand...
Here are some of his credentials for those not familiar with his work:

Father John Trigilio

Co-Host of television series on EWTN:

WEB OF FAITH
COUNCIL OF FAITH
CRASH COURSE ON CATHOLICISM
CRASH COURSE ON POPE JOHN PAUL II
CRASH COURSE ON SAINTS

President: Confraternity of Catholic Clergy

Pastor: Our Lady of Good Council Church

Books: Saints for Dummies, Catholicism for Dummies, John Paul II for Dummies, Women in the Bible for Dummies, The Everything Bible Book, The Catholicism Answer Book, Thomistic Renaissance: the Natural Moral Law -The reawakening of scholasticism in Catholic teaching as evidenced by Pope John Paul II in VeritatIs Splendor

Blog: The Black Biretta
 
LaSainte said:
Here are some of his credentials for those not familiar with his work:

Father John Trigilio

Co-Host of television series on EWTN:

WEB OF FAITH
COUNCIL OF FAITH
CRASH COURSE ON CATHOLICISM
CRASH COURSE ON POPE JOHN PAUL II
CRASH COURSE ON SAINTS

President: Confraternity of Catholic Clergy

Pastor: Our Lady of Good Council Church

Books: Saints for Dummies, Catholicism for Dummies, John Paul II for Dummies, Women in the Bible for Dummies, The Everything Bible Book, The Catholicism Answer Book, Thomistic Renaissance: the Natural Moral Law -The reawakening of scholasticism in Catholic teaching as evidenced by Pope John Paul II in VeritatIs Splendor

Blog: The Black Biretta
Click to expand...
Yes and he can make a mistake in an older article…(as can many of us humans) he was relying a lot at the time on Ott which is a very fine source (from the mid 20th century…and does not address the moral teachings so much as others…I do not think contraception is even addressed there…he was using it for his categories though and I would say honestly made a mistake in giving that example at the time)…

and of course that text does not take into account the Professio and its commentary which which came out from the Holy See…and the document that noted that the teaching on contraception is to be held as definitive and irreformable…
 
LaSainte said:
Here are some of his credentials for those not familiar with his work:

Father John Trigilio

Co-Host of television series on EWTN:

WEB OF FAITH
COUNCIL OF FAITH
CRASH COURSE ON CATHOLICISM
CRASH COURSE ON POPE JOHN PAUL II
CRASH COURSE ON SAINTS

President: Confraternity of Catholic Clergy

Pastor: Our Lady of Good Council Church

Books: Saints for Dummies, Catholicism for Dummies, John Paul II for Dummies, Women in the Bible for Dummies, The Everything Bible Book, The Catholicism Answer Book, Thomistic Renaissance: the Natural Moral Law -The reawakening of scholasticism in Catholic teaching as evidenced by Pope John Paul II in VeritatIs Splendor

Blog: The Black Biretta
Click to expand...
Yes and of course he can make a mistake in an older article…(as can many of us humans) he was relying a lot at the time on Ott (as one can see) which is a very fine source (from the mid 20th century…which by the way does not address the moral teachings so much as others…I do not think contraception is even addressed there…he was using it for his categories though and I would say honestly made a mistake in giving that example at the time)…

and of course Ott does not take into account the Professio and its commentary which which came out from the Holy See…

and the Vatican document I posted before that noted that the teaching on contraception is to be held as *definitive *and irreformable…

(the good Father would I would think…agree with such…given his constant intent to follow the teachings of the Church etc…)
 
LaSainte said:
Actually, thIs isn’t quite true. I believe Bookcat mentioned the difference earlier. A teaching can be infallible without requiring divine and Catholic faith.
Click to expand...
Bookcat said:
Little One

As you read the document from the CDF I posted you will find that yes something can be infallible and not require “the assent of theological faith”…it is important though to read the whole document ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM …it needs to be understood together…and then you see what the distinctions mean …it is not that it becomes open for rejection etc…or that one is not assenting…or that faith is in no way involved …etc
Click to expand...
My apologies to both of you. I vaguely remember Bookcat’s post. Please excuse the late night posting on that. I wish that I could delete that post, but I stand corrected. 😃

Thanks for the fraternal correction, I recant Post #145.

God bless.
 
Roman_Catechism said:
I don’t see how an informed and practicing Catholic could possibly believe ABCs are morally permissible and even use them. Such a belief has no basis in Church teaching.

I can’t vote on the issue, however, presumably because of my trial membership.
Click to expand...
I can tally your vote, and secondly this poll won’t be closing. So ya can come back and vote if ya want to.

Thanks and God bless.
 
Bookcat said:
Yes and of course he can make a mistake in an older article…(as can many of us humans) he was relying a lot at the time on Ott (as one can see) which is a very fine source (from the mid 20th century…which by the way does not address the moral teachings so much as others…I do not think contraception is even addressed there…he was using it for his categories though and I would say honestly made a mistake in giving that example at the time)…

and of course Ott does not take into account the Professio and its commentary which which came out from the Holy See…

and the Vatican document I posted before that noted that the teaching on contraception is to be held as *definitive *and irreformable…
Click to expand...
I love Ott’s work, I wish that someone would actually update it for Post-Vatican II.

God bless.
 
Bookcat said:
Such was his “theological opinion” at the time he wrote the article…
Click to expand...
Bookcat said:
Yes and of course he can make a mistake in an older article…(as can many of us humans) he was relying a lot at the time on Ott (as one can see) which is a very fine source (from the mid 20th century…which by the way does not address the moral teachings so much as others…I do not think contraception is even addressed there…he was using it for his categories though and I would say honestly made a mistake in giving that example at the time)…

and of course Ott does not take into account the Professio and its commentary which which came out from the Holy See…

and the Vatican document I posted before that noted that the teaching on contraception is to be held as *definitive *and irreformable…

(the good Father would I would think…agree with such…given his constant intent to follow the teachings of the Church etc…)
Click to expand...
Bookcat, the article was written in 1991- hardly that long ago. This is all of course post-Humanae Vitae and post-Theology of the Body, etc. The priest knew what he was talking about. And the “document” you keep referring to is simply a guide for confessors, not exactly a papal encyclical meant to be binding on all of the faithful.

And as far as I can see that article has no retractions or corrections, so we can only assume that the father’s opinion still holds. He has written many books and is very familiar with the process of doing research. I’m sure he did his diligence to consult and take into account all that was available to him, unless you have a reason to discredit him of course that I am not aware of.
 
LaSainte said:
Bookcat, the article was written in 1991-
Click to expand...
Such would be then prior to both the Professio and its commentary by the CDF (Cardinal Ratzinger was head at that time and signed it)…which goes brillantly into what the Church teaches regarding the various kinds of assent etc.

as well as prior to the document that I have noted…which states very clearly that such is to be held to be definitive and irreformable.

(the source he used is from the 1950’s in regards to the various theological notes…and as good as Ott is…one must still take the work from the CDF of the Church as the authentic source of the kinds of teaching and assent…(not available at the time of the writing as you noted) and how to understand them at the levels it speaks of)

(ps we can all let various articles get away from us…forget what was said where…and when etc…especially if one writes a lot none of us is a Vulcan…and as I noted the presumption would rather stand where we know him to stand --that is seeking to be always thinking with the Church etc)
 
LaSainte said:
Wouldn’t that be nice?
Click to expand...
Bookcat said:
Such would be then prior to both the Professio and its commentary by the CDF (Cardinal Ratzinger was head at that time and signed it)…which goes brillantly into what the Church teaches regarding the various kinds of assent etc.

as well as prior to the document that I have noted…which states very clearly that such is to be held to be definitive and irreformable.

(the source he used is from the 1950’s in regards to the various theological notes…and as good as Ott is…one must still take the work from the CDF of the Church as the authentic source of the kinds of teaching and assent…(not available at the time of the writing as you noted) and how to understand them at the levels it speaks of)

(ps we can all let various articles get away from us…forget what was said where…and when etc…especially if one writes a lot none of us is a Vulcan…and as I noted the presumption would rather stand where we know him to stand --that is seeking to be always thinking with the Church etc)
Click to expand...
Bookcat, there has been nothing since 1991 that has fundamentally changed or reaffirmed the Church’s teaching on Contraception in any way. No encyclicals, no ex cathedra statements, no ecumenical councils. I think to try and discredit the article by saying that the article “got away” from him and that he would somehow feel differently now is a huge leap on your part trying to justify your own position. The teaching on contraception is today what it was in 1991 and I’m sure that unless there is a retraction or an update to the article that the priest who wrote it stands by what he wrote, which is that the Church teaching on contraception falls under the realm of theological opinion until the Vatican itself comes out with an official document or teaching stating otherwise and raising it to the level of a theological certainty. This man is hardly a rebel or a rabble-rouser, but a very conservative and knowledgeable priest.
 
LaSainte said:
Bookcat, there has been nothing since 1991 that has fundamentally changed or reaffirmed the Church’s teaching on Contraception in any way. No encyclicals, no ex cathedra statements, no ecumenical councils. I think to try and discredit the article by saying that the article “got away” from him and that he would somehow feel differently now is a huge leap on your part trying to justify your own position. The teaching on contraception is today what it was in 1991 and I’m sure that unless there is a retraction or an update to the article that the priest who wrote it stands by what he wrote, which is that the Church teaching on contraception falls under the realm of theological opinion until the Vatican itself comes out with an official document or teaching stating otherwise and raising it to the level of a theological certainty. This man is hardly a rebel or a rabble-rouser, but a very conservative and knowledgeable priest.
Click to expand...
I have already explained 🙂

And noted the document from the Church…and of course the

the words used in the document where…“definitive” and “irreformable”…

…it is certainly not a “theological opinion” (not that he was meaning to say it was…(but he was giving it as an example of common teaching…he was trying to outline what Ott went into in general…before the new doc)

It is the clear and certain teaching of the Catholic Church…and as noted…is to be held as definitive…

I again refer readers also to read the entire CDF document that I posted above.
 
Bookcat said:
I have already explained 🙂

And noted the document from the Church…and of course the

the words used in the document where…“definitive” and “irreformable”…

…it is certainly not a “theological opinion” (not that he was meaning to say it was…(but he was giving it as an example of common teaching…he was trying to outline what Ott went into in general…before the new doc)

It is the clear and certain teaching of the Catholic Church…and as noted…is to be held as definitive…

I again refer readers also to read the entire CDF document that I posted above.
Click to expand...
And it is important to recall that the term used in what are called “theological notes” (as used in the work by Ott) do not mean “opinion” in the way we use it today.
 
Bookcat said:
And it is important to recall that the term used in what are called “theological notes” (as used in the work by Ott) do not mean “opinion” in the way we use it today.
Click to expand...
So it seems that Father was just explaining the theological notes as basically explained by Ott… and using the terms …found there (in the 1950’s text)…so readers need to bear in this in mind. (including me …)…

But again I would note that he was writing before the document that came out from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that explained in detail the Professio…and the various categories and meanings that it was using. This being a document from the CDF…such is very important to understand when discussing theologically the different kinds of teaching and assent … (and in doing so not to mix this with the “theological notes” of Ott …for such can be a bit confusing…)
 
Bookcat said:
I have already explained 🙂

And noted the document from the Church…and of course the

the words used in the document where…“definitive” and “irreformable”…

…it is certainly not a “theological opinion” (not that he was meaning to say it was…(but he was giving it as an example of common teaching…he was trying to outline what Ott went into in general…before the new doc)

It is the clear and certain teaching of the Catholic Church…and as noted…is to be held as definitive…

I again refer readers also to read the entire CDF document that I posted above.
Click to expand...
Yes, and as I stated above, that “document” was a guide for priests hearing confessions, not a public document binding the faithful. Everything that we are bound to believe/follow re: the teaching on contraception was already well-known when the Father wrote his article. I don’t see anything that has been released since then that would change his very knowledgeable opinion on the matter and given that he hasn’t published anything retracting or changing his analysis, I think we must assume that his position remains the same.
 
LaSainte said:
Yes, and as I stated above, that “document” was a guide for priests hearing confessions, not a public document binding the faithful…
Click to expand...
The document is a public document (hence it is on the vatican website) and it is direction to confessor for the guiding of the faithful etc…

Jimmy Akin’s take (*and he is also one who understands such documents and their origins and intent etc…)…and of course he is the senior apologist of Catholic Answers…the very site we are now occupying…

jimmyakin.org/2004/11/contraception_i.html
 
LaSainte said:
Yes, and as I stated above, that “document” was a guide for priests hearing confessions, not a public document binding the faithful. Everything that we are bound to believe/follow re: the teaching on contraception was already well-known when the Father wrote his article. I don’t see anything that has been released since then that would change his very knowledgeable opinion on the matter and given that he hasn’t published anything retracting or changing his analysis, I think we must assume that his position remains the same.
Click to expand...
Again…your misunderstanding the words he used there…(as too did I…I should note)…

he is not saying it is a theological opinion the way such words are used normally…opinion here it is just a translation of the word SENTENTIA …

The theological notes that he is using from the text from the 1950’s are not speaking of “opinions” in that way…they do not mean what we mean normally when we use the term…they are terms of art…

It is not meant to transform the doctrine regarding the intrinsic evil of contraception into an “opinion”

And again setting aside Ott…we turn to the language of the Church as she indeed teaches.

And she makes it very clear that this is the constant teaching of the Church…

It is one that is is to be held as definitive.

And turning to the document from the CDF…one can see the various kinds of teaching that the Church has included in the Professio …and the explanation of such.

And the kind of assent to each the faithful are to give.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top