Eucharist and contraception

[AdamP88]

What she said is correct. It’s certainly not a way of saying “l am God”. Certainly you don’t think the bishops who wrote the CCC are saying “I am God”.

I think you’ll find nothing in the catechism to back up your assertion.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

It’s already been quoted my friend.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Try the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Of course I’ve read it. That’s what I was quoting from. And I have no quarrel with the idea that conscience must be “informed” --but when you bring that into the real world, it’s not as clear as you might think. I would think it would be obvious that for a smaller matter you need spend less time “informing” your conscience that a major matter. But I don’t think God expects each of us to get a PhD in a particular field to “inform” our conscience. Nor do I think God wants each of us to blindly follow the Church. One can find tons of examples where, if one took a Church teaching from one period and applied it to 2018, you would be completely wrong. But what if someone from that earlier period disagreed with the same teaching? Today they would be in the mainstream of religious thinking. But at the time they would be seen as defying the Church. (Galileo, etc.) In the end, we are each responsible for ourselves. At the Last Judgment we can’t say “I was just following orders.”

 

[AdamP88]

I know.
But no where in the Catechism does it say: “Conscience is supreme and if you feel you are ok in your conscience, then you can do what you like, even if it’s explicitly against the teaching of the Church.”

The Church simply doesn’t teach that conscience trumps Church teaching.

 

[AdamP88]

but when you bring that into the real world, it’s not as clear as you might think.

Oh dear…how many times have I heard that!

As if applying Church Teaching to the “real world” is some complicated thing that’s only possible for the select few.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

But no where in the Catechism does it say: “Conscience is supreme and if you feel you are ok in your conscience, then you can do what you like, even if it’s explicitly against the teaching of the Church.”

Actually it does. My original quotation from the Catechism:

1782 "Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.”

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I know.
But no where in the Catechism does it say: “Conscience is supreme and if you feel you are ok in your conscience, then you can do what you like, even if it’s explicitly against the teaching of the Church.”

The Church simply doesn’t teach that conscience trumps Church teaching.

She didn’t say what you have quoted. You should make it more clear that those are not her words, but that they are a quotation of your own misunderstanding of her words.

 

[AdamP88]

Actually it does. My original quotation from the Catechism:

1782 "Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.”

Yeah, but he also has the responsibility to inform the conscience. Conscience isn’t infallible. It’s just essential to free will that people are allowed to follow their conscience. Doesn’t mean that their conscience will always steer them right.

Really, anything can be justified if you simply say “well, conscience is supreme”.

But using conscience to justify acts which are inherently evil doesn’t make them ok…it is the sin of pride and puts man in the place of God.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Yeah, but he also has the responsibility to inform the conscience. Conscience isn’t infallible. It’s just essential to free will that people are allowed to follow their conscience. Doesn’t mean that their conscience will always steer them right.

Really, anything can be justified if you simply say “well, conscience is supreme”.

But using conscience to justify acts which are inherently evil doesn’t make them ok…it is the sin of pride and puts man in the place of God.

We disagree. As I said, I don’t want to debate this–it’s fruitless.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

She didn’t say what you have quoted. You should make it more clear that those are not her words, but that they are a quotation of your own misunderstanding of her words.

Thanks. One VERY frustrating thing I find on these forums is that people put words in your mouth. I almost always quote the Catechism, Vatican II documents, or other official Church documents in my posts. As we all know, these are not always unambiguous–usually the opposite. And it’s intentional. So different people can have different interpretations.

 

[TheLittleLady]

It depends.

Is the person taking hormones that can also be a contraceptive to treat a medical condition OR is the person using a device or medication or action with the intent to render sterile the marital act?

 

[AdamP88]

One VERY frustrating thing I find on these forums is that people put words in your mouth.

Nobody is putting words in your mouth. I simply used an example to make what I am saying unambiguous.

You went on to actually agree with the statement I used as an example so I don’t see how you can complain about “putting words in your mouth”.

these are not always unambiguous–usually the opposite. And it’s intentional. So different people can have different interpretations.

This would be funny if it wasn’t so ridiculous. Why do you think the Church has teachings at all if that’s the case?

 

[MCH1]

1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.”

Sorry, but who has a conscience so warped that they can read from a credable source “X is a mortal sin”, and honestly think that it is not? If they disagree with this, despite knowing what the Church teaches, then they are, with all due respect, falling into heretical beliefs. Do you not agree with the definition of mortal sin? If someone has full knowledge and consents to an action that is grave matter, they commit a mortal sin. It doesn’t matter if they don’t like it.

However, when all is said and done, there is clearly a group in the Church, including many cardinals, and probably Francis himself, that would tend to favor conscience over laws. This (church rule/law vs. conscience) has always been an issue, and to just brush it aside and pretend it never existed, or does not exist now, is not being intellectually honest. You don’t have to agree, or even take sides, but you do have to acknowledge that there is disagreement about the nuances of all this in the Church.

Sorry, I think I will go by what has always been Church teaching rather that the passing opinion of several liberal clerics…

 

[tseleehw]

Agreed. These texts in the CCC assume a reasonably well-formed conscience, not one that is warped and attempting to perform mental gymnastics in order to be satisfied with performing an action that is explicitly forbidden by Church teaching. I have yet to hear anyone proclaim that it is moral to murder the first person I see on the street because I was merely “following my conscience”. Nor have I heard any cleric say that it is moral to procure an abortion, take the Eucharist and flush it down a toilet, or burn down my local parish because I was simply “following my conscience”. This whole line of reasoning is absurd and is only ever applied to teachings that people find difficult or disagree with to give themselves cover for disobeying moral law. It is no coincidence that you never heard of this back in the times of St. John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI and only started hearing this in the last five years; certain prelates who have now gained positions of power in the Church are doing their utmost to attack the moral teachings of the Church, and Humanae Vitae is their number one target.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

This would be funny if it wasn’t so ridiculous. Why do you think the Church has teachings at all if that’s the case?

You’re asking very easy questions! If there was an almost infinite continuum between black (one interpretation of church teachings) on one side and white (another interpretation) on the other, you would have two points where there was pure white or pure black. In between–in an almost infinite variety–you would have variations.

I’ll use an analogy I always trot out: stopping at a red light. A city passes a law: You must stop at a red light or pay a fine. (= Church “rule”) Great! Unambiguous, right? Not at all. If you are travelling 50 mph and the light begins to turn amber, do you continue or stop? At some point, if you continue, you will not “stop at a red light.” But a fraction of a second sooner, and you’re OK. Who is to judge? You. The police. A judge. Let’s add to it: let’s say it’s rainy or there is ice on the road…do you slam on the brakes and risk a major accident just in order to “stop at a red light”? Or go to scenarios, which are endless. You are driving a badly injured person to the emergency room–do you stop and risk their lives? Or maybe it’s 4 AM and you can see 1 mile in all directions–no cars. Do you stop? You can go on and on. That’s why police (= Church, or confessor) have the power to ignore your “crime.” And that’s why a judge (= God) has the power to decide if you are guilty or not.

So why does the Church have teachings at all? Because, yes, it’s a good idea to have a law that says “Stop at a red light.” Otherwise there is chaos. But there are also lots of extenuating circumstances that allow you to ignore the law.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

several liberal clerics…

i.e., ones that disagree with you?

 

[MCH1]

i.e., ones that disagree with you?

i.e., ones that disagree with Church teaching.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

that you never heard of this back in the times of St. John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI

How about St. Augustine?

 

[AdamP88]

So why does the Church have teachings at all? Because, yes, it’s a good idea to have a law that says “Stop at a red light.” Otherwise there is chaos. But there are also lots of extenuating circumstances that allow you to ignore the law.

This is pure nonsense.

The Church simply doesn’t teach in that manner.

According to you, it would be ok to simply ignore any rule or church teaching as long as you could justify it in your own conscience.

What about the ten commandments?

That’s a fairly unambiguous list right there?

 

[MCH1]

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131

1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.