Does Matthew 25 contradict Catholicism?

[Thankful10]

Yes, Thankful. That the job of the Church is to teach, and that the Holy Spirit prevents the Church from teaching error is exactly what I am saying.

Matthew 25 and successive passages of Scripture define the Church’s authority to teach.

Over time, the teachings of the Church do get clarified over time. The question of what Limbo is and where unbaptized infants go is one example. The nature of the Trinity is another, and so is purgatory.**That the world is flat.**Let’s limit your issues to the Church’s Scriptural doctrine and dogma, however, not the history of its men, including wars. As I said, the Church has had its characters of dubious quality, but the Holy Spirit has kept error from its teaching of the faith over the passage of time.

But before we go down that road regarding inerrant teaching, it is important that you and I acknowledge what men, and under what authority, compiled the works that formed the Bible.

I don’t think I have your answer to that question, and I’ve already stated the history of the Bible’s compilation, I believe. The Holy Spirit has no hands. It designated people to create the writings that form its content and then, later, to compile them into a unified codex and decide if they are truly the inspired word of God.

Without your thoughts on this, I don’t think I’ll be able to continue our discussion as the faith of the compilers and writers and authors are a critical part that defines why the Bible is part of the Church’s three pillars: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium, the teaching body–as well as the foundation for most non-Catholic Christian traditions.

The Bible is the Word of God. Now to continue our discussion we need to start another thread, because we would be derailing this one if we continued.
I will start a thread about Christians killing another human.

 

[Spencerian]

Thankful, I think you’re right in that we should end our discussion here for now. While the matter of ordination and apostolic authority is key from Matthew 25, the two of us are making the thread long and ponderous–forums are really for jotting stuff down and less suited for extended debate. It was definitely illuminating discussing things, and we can start a new topic later and refine the question.

 

[chaunceygardner]

According to Matthew 25, you will attain salvation if you perform the good works listed there.
According to the Catholic belief in order to attain salvation you must be subject to the Roman Pontiff and you must abstain from meat on days of abstinence and attend Mass on Sundays and the holydays of obligation and you must perform your Easter duty, etc. and as well, of course, you must obey the ten commandments, and for married couples, you must not use contraceptives, and more. .
Is there a contradiction between the conditions for salvation as laid out in Matthew 25 and the conditions for salvation as taught to us by the Church?
For example, if you are married, will you attain eternal salvation if you perform the good works as listed in Matthew 25, but use contraceptives? I think that the answer to this is no, but if you read Matthew 25, there is no mention made of the necessity to avoid contraception.
So the question is whether or not Matthew 25 contradicts what Catholicism teaches with regard to what is and what is not required to attain eternal salvation.

I just found this thread and read through the posts. It appears that others have responded to your question, but you continue to ask it. That’s good, because it begs to be more thoughtfully considered.

My short answer is, “Yes.” All the “requirements” for salvation as given by the Church today were just not there at the time of Matthew’s Gospel. Just some simple rules, based on the first two Commandments. And Christianity isn’t a product of the Catholic Church, as one poster said, rather the Church is a product of Christianity. Or more correctly, the product of Christianities (plural) as there were many separate Christian communities that were not unified in their beliefs or practices in the early decades. That did not really occur until several hundred years later, as the various councils sorted it all out and distilled the variances into one agreed upon way of understanding.

I highly recommend that one reads the Gospels with this question in mind: What did Jesus say we should do to attain salvation? What are the keys to heaven, according to His teaching? If you do that, you should be amazed at how simple and clear the answer is.

But you, sidbrown, appear to be already doing that, for which I commend you.

 

[erikd]

I just found this thread and read through the posts. It appears that others have responded to your question, but you continue to ask it. That’s good, because it begs to be more thoughtfully considered.

My short answer is, “Yes.” All the “requirements” for salvation as given by the Church today were just not there at the time of Matthew’s Gospel. Just some simple rules, based on the first two Commandments.

Hi, Chauncey, I believe that Jesus Christ would disagree with this statement:

18 Now a certain ruler asked Him, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”
19 So Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.
20 "You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery,’ ‘Do not murder,’ ‘Do not steal,’ ‘Do not bear false witness,’ ‘Honor your father and your mother.’ "
Luke 18:18-20

Jesus mentions five commandments here in answer to the ruler’s question. We know that that our love for God is a prerequisite to being united with God. However, that includes other things such as the ones Jesus mentions here.

And Christianity isn’t a product of the Catholic Church, as one poster said, rather the Church is a product of Christianity.

I’m afraid the Scriptures disagree with you here as well. Remember that the Gospels were not finished until about 60-70 years after the death of Jesus. There were no Gospels at one time, and it took the Apostles, who were the earthly heads of the Church, to teach the people the ways of God. Acts 15, the council of Jerusalem is a perfect example of the Church setting the rules for the Christians.

Or more correctly, the product of Christianities (plural) as there were many separate Christian communities that were not unified in their beliefs or practices in the early decades. That did not really occur until several hundred years later, as the various councils sorted it all out and distilled the variances into one agreed upon way of understanding.

I would steer you to newadvent.org which is a great website for looking through historical writings of the early Popes and the Church Fathers. In particular, I would refer you to the writings of St. Clement, one of the earliest Popes of the Catholic Church, who wrote an epistle to the Corinthians around 90 AD. This is a good indication of how the Church authorities corrected the ways of the Christians, just as the Apostled did before them. A little side note on this epistle is that it was discussed at the Council of Rome in 382 AD as a possible contender (if I can use that term here) for canonicity. In other words, it almost became part of Holy Scripture, and that in itself makes it worthwhile to read.

I highly recommend that one reads the Gospels with this question in mind: What did Jesus say we should do to attain salvation? What are the keys to heaven, according to His teaching? If you do that, you should be amazed at how simple and clear the answer is.

But you, sidbrown, appear to be already doing that, for which I commend you.

I agree with you, Chauncey, just look at my first response on this post.

 

[chaunceygardner]

Hi, Chauncey, I believe that Jesus Christ would disagree with this statement:

chauncey:

All the “requirements” for salvation as given by the Church today were just not there at the time of Matthew’s Gospel. Just some simple rules, based on the first two Commandments.

Now a certain ruler asked Him, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”
So Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.
"You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery,’ ‘Do not murder,’ ‘Do not steal,’ ‘Do not bear false witness,’ ‘Honor your father and your mother.’ "
Luke 18:18-20

Jesus mentions five commandments here in answer to the ruler’s question. We know that that our love for God is a prerequisite to being united with God. However, that includes other things such as the ones Jesus mentions here.

Very true, but note that I said “based on the first two commandments”. And don’t you see this passage from Luke as an expansion of what Jesus says in Mark and Matthew? Here are those passages:

Mark 12: The scribe said to him, “Well said, teacher. You are right in saying, ‘He is One and there is no other than he.’
And ‘to love him with all your heart, with all your understanding, with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself’ is worth more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”
And when Jesus saw that (he) answered with understanding, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.”

Matthew 22:“Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?"
He said to him, “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.
This is the greatest and the first commandment.
The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.”

The other commandments that Jesus mentions in Luke can all be deduced from these two, as Jesus says in Matthew.

I’m afraid the Scriptures disagree with you here as well. Remember that the Gospels were not finished until about 60-70 years after the death of Jesus. There were no Gospels at one time, and it took the Apostles, who were the earthly heads of the Church, to teach the people the ways of God. Acts 15, the council of Jerusalem is a perfect example of the Church setting the rules for the Christians.

I am not sure that Scripture can prove or disprove something that happened AFTER the scriptures were recorded. Your reference to Acts is a very good example of what I am talking about in the early Church. Who was that document addressed to? Theophilus. So it was a continuation of the Gospel of Luke that was to be used to instruct Theophilus, and perhaps his family and community of non-Palestinian Gentiles, about Jesus and Christianity. Each of the Gospels and obviously most of the Epistles (and Clement’s letter you reference) were written for a particular church and/or community. And since they did not have easy access to each others’ teachings and writings, it follows that various Christian communities or regions developed somewhat different beliefs and practices. That is part of recorded Church history.

The Chapter of Acts you refer to is also very instructional on this issue. It was the JERUSALEM Church that was having the difficulty with Gentiles entering the Christian community and not following Jewish law. The churches led by Paul and his followers were already accepting them. This wasn’t a universal church question, but one that needed to be settled in this one community. And this passage may have been emphasized here in order to show the letter’s recipients that acceptance into Christianity was not limited to Jews.

As you noted, it took several centuries and councils for the entire Church to agree on a Scriptural Canon. It took the same and even a little longer to get everyone on the same page doctrinally.

I agree with you, Chauncey, just look at my first response on this post.

Which I did, and thank you for the web and document references, of which I am aware. My point was and is that many people agonize over all the doctrines and rules that the Catholic Church (and to be fair, other Christian churches) promulgate, and worry about whether what they do or think is sinful or in error. If you just apply the basic teachings contained in Matthew 22 or Mark 12, or use the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), you will have what you need to answer those questions.

 

[sidbrown]

My point was and is that many people agonize over all the doctrines and rules that the Catholic Church (and to be fair, other Christian churches) promulgate, and worry about whether what they do or think is sinful or in error. If you just apply the basic teachings contained in Matthew 22 or Mark 12, or use the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), you will have what you need to answer those questions.

Yes, that seems reasonable until you realise that there are rules and regulations that Catholics are required to follow under pain of mortal sin which do not appear in those passages, for example, artificial birth control is forbidden while it is not mentioned in the Bible, or abstaining from meat on Fridays of Lent, or the obligation to attend Mass on December 8.

 

[chaunceygardner]

Yes, that seems reasonable until you realise that there are rules and regulations that Catholics are required to follow under pain of mortal sin which do not appear in those passages, for example, artificial birth control is forbidden while it is not mentioned in the Bible, or abstaining from meat on Fridays of Lent, or the obligation to attend Mass on December 8.

Then perhaps these “rules and regulations” have turned the Chuch into what Jesus warned us about in Luke 11:

And he said, “Woe also to you scholars of the law! You impose on people burdens hard to carry, but you yourselves do not lift one finger to touch them.”

For many, the burdens imposed by their Church are beyond understanding. Since you brought it up, let’s get down to one of the BIG basics. Ask 90% or so of Catholic couples married in the past 40 years if their Church’s teaching about birth control is a burden? Ask them if THEY accept these teachings, and if they think they are what Jesus expects? Ask the many Priests who had to counsel these couples how they felt about this doctrine and what they told them? (or didn’t tell them?)

And here, in contrast, is what Jesus tells us in Matthew 11 about HIS burdens:

Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for your selves.
For my yoke is easy, and my burden light.

Perhaps not as light as some would like, but certainly not as complex and as full of landmines as the many burdens imposed by the Church. And we do have our own Crosses to bear in life, but they shouldn’t be added to by the Church!
I would love to hear what Jesus would say about that (perhaps the above quote from Matthew?).

 

[diggerdomer]

Yes, that seems reasonable until you realise that there are rules and regulations that Catholics are required to follow under pain of mortal sin which do not appear in those passages, for example, artificial birth control is forbidden while it is not mentioned in the Bible, or abstaining from meat on Fridays of Lent, or the obligation to attend Mass on December 8.

Not following those teachings/disciplines does not automatically put one in a state of mortal sin (according to Catholic teaching).

 

[erikd]

Very true, but note that I said “based on the first two commandments”. And don’t you see this passage from Luke as an expansion of what Jesus says in Mark and Matthew?

So you’re in agreement with me? It seems that way. St. Paul also summarized the commandments into the commandment that Jesus gave us:

For this, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, You shall not covet; and if there be ANY OTHER COMMANDMENT, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, (o. logos) namely, You shall love your neighbour as yourself.
Romans 13:9

You characterized these as “some simple rules based on the first two Commandments” but now you’re agreeing with me that maybe instead of simple rules these requirements for eternal life might include following all of the commandments? I’m confused as to your answer, though I believe the Scripture is clear on the matter.

The other commandments that Jesus mentions in Luke can all be deduced from these two, as Jesus says in Matthew.

So you’re still in agreement that the commandments need to be followed, not just some simple rules right? I guess I’m still confused.

Your reference to Acts is a very good example of what I am talking about in the early Church. Who was that document addressed to? Theophilus. So it was a continuation of the Gospel of Luke that was to be used to instruct Theophilus, and perhaps his family and community of non-Palestinian Gentiles, about Jesus and Christianity. Each of the Gospels and obviously most of the Epistles (and Clement’s letter you reference) were written for a particular church and/or community. And since they did not have easy access to each others’ teachings and writings, it follows that various Christian communities or regions developed somewhat different beliefs and practices. That is part of recorded Church history.

“Theophilus” is Greek for “friend of God” which means you and I both. This letter was made canonical by the Catholic Church in 382 AD for many reasons, one of which is that all can be instructed by it. By the way, I agree with your asessment of the logistics of delivering these letters almost 2000 years ago, but they did get delivered, and they also were enforced. St. Clement’s letter to the Corinthians, for instance, was sent with two enforcers who were instructed not to return until they said that the letter was being followed. Some communities may have strayed though history does not record those events as much as it records the fact that everyone was united. The ones that strayed were the ones being instructed by the Bishop of Rome.

The Chapter of Acts you refer to is also very instructional on this issue. It was the JERUSALEM Church that was having the difficulty with Gentiles entering the Christian community and not following Jewish law. The churches led by Paul and his followers were already accepting them. This wasn’t a universal church question, but one that needed to be settled in this one community. And this passage may have been emphasized here in order to show the letter’s recipients that acceptance into Christianity was not limited to Jews.

Actually this decision was made with the Apostles and the whole Church (Acts 15:22) and it was adressed to the Churches in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia (Acts 15:23). The entire Church made the decision, which means the decision was for the entire Church. It would be silly for Bishops from a certain area to not follow the decision made for these three Churches, as the Church was one and universal (or Catholic) and therefore always followed, as She still follows, one teaching. Please remember why Church councils are called: usually to address heresy. The Council of Trent, for instance, was called to address the heresy put out by the reformers. The decisions of that council didn’t just apply to the people in Austria (where Luther lived) they applied to the entire Church.

As you noted, it took several centuries and councils for the entire Church to agree on a Scriptural Canon. It took the same and even a little longer to get everyone on the same page doctrinally.

The Church always acted as one following one teaching. Doctrinal issues were not, historically, as divided as you might think because doctrines taught by the Church were universally understood by most people. It wasn’t until later, with the development of languages that people began to misunderstand the teachings of the Holy Writ. The Church has always been here to correct and instruct, but many did not listen. The reformation (or the defection as I refer to it) was a perfect example.

Continued on next post

 

[erikd]

Continued from previous post

Which I did, and thank you for the web and document references, of which I am aware. My point was and is that many people agonize over all the doctrines and rules that the Catholic Church (and to be fair, other Christian churches) promulgate, and worry about whether what they do or think is sinful or in error. If you just apply the basic teachings contained in Matthew 22 or Mark 12, or use the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), you will have what you need to answer those questions.

The chapters you mentioned, in particular the Sermon on the Mount, explain sinfulness like it had never been explained to people before. However, there are other passages I could point you to that explain the need for other things contained within the Church. John chapter 6, for instance, tells us that unless we eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, we cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. St. John’s gospel, chapter 20 tells us that the Apostles were given the power to forgive sins, a power they passed to their successors. This shows that in order for the Apostles to forgive the sins of men, men had to tell the Apostles their sins. From this we have confession, which seems like a natural way to repent and follow Jesus’ prescription for the forgiveness of sins. Acts 8:14-17 tells us that the laying on of the hands is absolutely essential for receiving the Holy Spirit. In John 3:5 and Mark 16:16 we see the need and absolute necessity for Baptism as a prerequisite for eternal life. I could go on and on, but I think you get the picture. Salvation is a process which really entails the Old Testament and the New Testament as one giant blue-print for salvation. All of the Holy Writ is inspired by God and therefore none of it can be ignored or set aside as less important than something else. Salvation is a process requiring a change of life and total conversion and devotion to God and His ways. You would be hard pressed to compartmentalize this entire process into just a few verses, but that’s just my humble opinion.

 

[erikd]

Yes, that seems reasonable until you realise that there are rules and regulations that Catholics are required to follow under pain of mortal sin which do not appear in those passages, for example, artificial birth control is forbidden while it is not mentioned in the Bible, or abstaining from meat on Fridays of Lent, or the obligation to attend Mass on December 8.

Actually, Sid, birth control is absolutely spoken of in the Bible. I recommend a faith tract, on this very website thay may shed some light on this matter:

catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

Going to Church on Sunday is in keeping with honoring the Lord on the day He arose from the abode. Abstaining from meat is a way for us to give something up for God, just as He Himself gave all He had for us. We see both of these ideas throughout the Old and New Testament.

 

[erikd]

Then perhaps these “rules and regulations” have turned the Chuch into what Jesus warned us about in Luke 11:

For many, the burdens imposed by their Church are beyond understanding. Since you brought it up, let’s get down to one of the BIG basics. Ask 90% or so of Catholic couples married in the past 40 years if their Church’s teaching about birth control is a burden? Ask them if THEY accept these teachings, and if they think they are what Jesus expects? Ask the many Priests who had to counsel these couples how they felt about this doctrine and what they told them? (or didn’t tell them?)

Did you conduct a poll or are these 90% numbers a guess? If you conducted a poll or read an article where a poll was conducted perhaps you’d like to share with us.

The fact is that many couples use natural family planning (NFP) to either prevent pregnancy, or to plan a pregnancy. Most couples I know are actually happy with this method though I don’t have actual statistics (though I know they’re available online).

As far as birth control is concerned, I would advise you also to read a Catholic Answers Faith Tract on artificial birth control:

catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

This article may shed some light as to where the Church receives Her teaching. Let me know what you think.

 

[sidbrown]

Not following those teachings/disciplines does not automatically put one in a state of mortal sin (according to Catholic teaching).

I thought that they were all serious matter and with sufficient reflection and full consent of the will you would be in mortal sin with these actions:
Missing Mass on December 8
Eating meat on a Friday of abstinence
Using artificial birth control.
Which of the above would not be gravely wrong according to Catholic teaching.

 

[sidbrown]

Actually, Sid, birth control is absolutely spoken of in the Bible…

i don;t see where in Matthew 25, Jesus says that if you practice artificial birth control or if you do not go to Mass on December 8, you will go to hell. He mentions some good works and He says that if you perform those good works, you will be saved, if not, then you go to hell.

 

[diggerdomer]

I thought that they were all serious matter and with sufficient reflection and full consent of the will you would be in mortal sin with these actions:
Missing Mass on December 8
Eating meat on a Friday of abstinence
Using artificial birth control.
Which of the above would not be gravely wrong according to Catholic teaching.

You never said anything about sufficient reflection and full consent of will in your original comment.

 

[sidbrown]

You never said anything about sufficient reflection and full consent of will in your original comment.

It is well known by anyone that a mortal sin requires sufficient reflection and full consent of the will, and you will see in many articles that it is mentioned that this action is a mortal sin, without going through each and every time that you need to have sufficient reflection and full consent of the will.

 

[erikd]

i don;t see where in Matthew 25, Jesus says that if you practice artificial birth control or if you do not go to Mass on December 8, you will go to hell. He mentions some good works and He says that if you perform those good works, you will be saved, if not, then you go to hell.

Hi Sid

You claimed that the nowhere in the Bible (I took that as meaning the entire Bible not just St. Matthew 25) is birth control prohibited. I showed you a faith tract that explained where that teaching is located. What did you think of this tract?

 

[inkaneer]

In reading Matthew 25:31 - 46, we see that those who have given drink to the thirsty, food to the hungry, visited prisoners, will possess the kingdom of heaven. But I don’t see where there is any mention that you have to belong to the Catholic Church in order to be saved. Is this a contradiction to Catholic teaching that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church?

First of all let me say that your post of 12/14/09 indicates that you joined Catholic ansewers on 12/13/09 and you have a total of 105 posts in just one day. Did you get any sleep? Now allow me to answer your question. Mt 25:31-46 states as follows:

"31 “When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33 and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. 34 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? 39 And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’ 41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?’ 45 Then he will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’ 46 And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” [Mt 25:31-46]

Read this ending of Chapter 25 with the beginning parable of the 10 maidens and the parable of the talents with the preceding chapter. In chapter 24 the Apostles pointed out to Jesus the beauty of the temple and Jesus launches into an eschatology prophesy. The judgement spoken of in MT 25:31 is what is known as the general judgement when everyone is judged together. It is not the particular judgement which we will experience individually at death. So all these people have been judged already as being either saved or damned. Now, here in the general judgement the books are opened and the people will know why they are saved and why they are damned and notice the judgement will be based on our works and not our faith. Notice that nowhere in this discourse by Jesus does He say that those who believed in Him are saved.

 

[chaunceygardner]

From my earlier post:
"chaunceygardner:

Ask 90% or so of Catholic couples married in the past 40 years if their Church’s teaching about birth control is a burden? Ask them if THEY accept these teachings, and if they think they are what Jesus expects? Ask the many Priests who had to counsel these couples how they felt about this doctrine and what they told them? (or didn’t tell them?)

Did you conduct a poll or are these 90% numbers a guess? If you conducted a poll or read an article where a poll was conducted perhaps you’d like to share with us.

I used the 90% figure based on books and articles I read about that time (late 60’s and early 70’s) when Catholic couples were first confronted with the changes that were occurring and the Church’s response. I have more recent attributable numbers that I will provide in a minute. First, however, the 90% figure was in reference to how many affected couples might consider or did consider the Church’s teaching a burden, as underlined. Not that they violated that teaching, for as we know many complied and do try to comply, but with a struggle. You can see the evidence for that in many of the threads on CAF. I realize after the fact that I should have left that number out, as it tended to confuse my point.

Now on to some surveys.

A 2005 survey, reported on Beliefnet, said that 63% of Catholics disagreed with the Church’s position on artificial birth control, while 10% weren’t sure. That means about a quarter agreed. Unfortunately the survey did not break the numbers down as to age and marital status. A 2008 Beliefnet survey showed very similar results, with 74% of Catholics saying that the use of artificial birth control methods was not sinful, and that 59% reported having used them.

A 2008 survey of Catholics indicated that 75% thought one could be a good Catholic and disagree with some of the Church’s doctrine. 61% said it was proper to use one’s conscience to make a decision on a moral issue.

In a 2005 Gallup survey reported on the American Enterprise Institute site, 78% of surveyed Catholics said artificial birth control was acceptable, and 94% of ALL respondents accepted it (consider that some of those 94% were likely FORMER Catholics, which is a whole other topic).

Finally, the survey I found most interesting and reflective of my memories of coming of age and getting married right after *Humane Vitae *was a survey of Priests done for the National Institute for the Renewal of the Priesthood. Of younger priests, 48% said that one could reject some Church teachings and remain faithful to the Church, while 72% of Vatican II era Priests (at least those still alive and active) held that position. WOW! Remove all those Priests for apostasy, and talk about Priest shortage!

So we have a big disconnect between what the Vatican Magisterium teaches and what many, many Catholics and Catholic Priests think is acceptable. “Rome, I think we have a problem.”

The fact is that many couples use natural family planning (NFP) to either prevent pregnancy, or to plan a pregnancy. Most couples I know are actually happy with this method though I don’t have actual statistics (though I know they’re available online).

A survey reported on the USCCB site says that 3.5% of women ages 15-44 have EVER used NFP, a reduction from seven years earlier. They reported a 70% rate of satisfaction with NFP, with the biggest issue being abstinence.

To relate all this to the Original question, does the use of artificial methods of controlling birth appear in any way to violate the teachings of Jesus in Matthew 25? Or the Sermon on the Mount? Well, according the great majority of those on the Papal Commission back in the 1960,'s, including theologians, Cardinals and Bishops, the answer was no.

So they and about 75% or so of Catholics are in agreement (as the Bishops at the Council would likely have been as well, which is why that particular subject was removed from their consideration).

 

[inkaneer]

From my earlier post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by chaunceygardner
Ask 90% or so of Catholic couples married in the past 40 years if their Church’s teaching about birth control is a burden? Ask them if THEY accept these teachings, and if they think they are what Jesus expects? Ask the many Priests who had to counsel these couples how they felt about this doctrine and what they told them? (or didn’t tell them?)

I used the 90% figure based on books and articles I read about that time (late 60’s and early 70’s) when Catholic couples were first confronted with the changes that were occurring and the Church’s response. I have more recent attributable numbers that I will provide in a minute. First, however, the 90% figure was in reference to how many affected couples might consider or did consider the Church’s teaching a burden, as underlined. Not that they violated that teaching, for as we know many complied and do try to comply, but with a struggle. You can see the evidence for that in many of the threads on CAF. I realize after the fact that I should have left that number out, as it tended to confuse my point.

Now on to some surveys.

A 2005 survey, reported on Beliefnet, said that 63% of Catholics disagreed with the Church’s position on artificial birth control, while 10% weren’t sure. That means about a quarter agreed. Unfortunately the survey did not break the numbers down as to age and marital status. A 2008 Beliefnet survey showed very similar results, with 74% of Catholics saying that the use of artificial birth control methods was not sinful, and that 59% reported having used them.

A 2008 survey of Catholics indicated that 75% thought one could be a good Catholic and disagree with some of the Church’s doctrine. 61% said it was proper to use one’s conscience to make a decision on a moral issue.

In a 2005 Gallup survey reported on the American Enterprise Institute site, 78% of surveyed Catholics said artificial birth control was acceptable, and 94% of ALL respondents accepted it (consider that some of those 94% were likely FORMER Catholics, which is a whole other topic).

Finally, the survey I found most interesting and reflective of my memories of coming of age and getting married right after *Humane Vitae *was a survey of Priests done for the National Institute for the Renewal of the Priesthood. Of younger priests, 48% said that one could reject some Church teachings and remain faithful to the Church, while 72% of Vatican II era Priests (at least those still alive and active priests) held that position. WOW! Remove all those Priests for apostasy, and talk about Priest shortage!

So we have a big disconnect between what the Vatican Magisterium teaches and what many, many Catholics and Catholic Priests think is acceptable. “Rome, I think we have a problem.”

No there is no problem other than that 90% [if that is an accurate figure] are wrong. The final chapter has yet to be written on the abortion/contraception issue and when it is written the answer will be what it has alway been; that our wealth is not in our money but in our children. This issue also shows quite convincingly that theology by democracy [majority rules] as practiced by protestants [sola scriptura] is not theology but mere political correctness. Europe has already seen the result of a negative birth rate and we are not far behind. Islam will take over the cathedrals of Europe just as it did the Church of the Holy Spirit [Haggia Sophia] in Constantinople [now Instanbul, Turkey]. Also just this week it was projected that in fifty years the white peoples of this country [USA] who once comprised over 90% of the population will be a minority. So are the 90% correct or was the church? I think those 90% will live to deeply regret seeing children as a burden.

Remember this, the church is not here to attempt to drag people into heaven against their will. It is here to teach people the ways of God so they can accept the ways of God and birth control/abortion is not the way of God. So if 90% did see children seen as a burden as you claim then they were wrong for Jesus said,

“For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” [Matthew 11:30]

And His true church, the “Ecclesia Kata holis” as scripture calls it, reaffirms that in its teaching on abortion/birth control.