T
tseleehw
Guest
I fail to see how it could possibly be a matter of discipline; that would be like saying that abortion is a sin but the practice of not receiving an abortion is only a discipline.
- Status
P
Pup7
Guest
Yeah really. If the previous 15 or so years didn’t do it (not to mention the last 2000), that won’t either.tseleehw:
Well, THAT or it would have just been a matter of discipline rather than dogma. But don’t let me rain on your dooms-day-parade…
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Which is irrelevant to what is and is not dogma, I’m sure you agree. Just like what I see is irrelevant too.
No, because “abortion” and “contraception” aren’t synonyms. Even the current pope has said so.
T
Tatum
Guest
Now you are starting to understand AL and Communion.
Last edited:
P
Pup7
Guest
There’s a case to be made that this part of HV isn’t doctrine either. That article is very interesting. I figured it was going to say “INFALLIBLE!”. But it didn’t, and that surprised me.
Last edited:
T
tseleehw
Guest
I am not equating contraception and abortion, but rather, pointing out that discipline cannot contradict doctrine or Church teaching.
T
Tatum
Guest
So how do you explain the allowed medical contracepting for rape victims?
If the practise is allowed then logic suggests your lay understanding of the contraceptive principles/teaching is what’s in error surely - not the Church Practise or the Church Teaching.
If the practise is allowed then logic suggests your lay understanding of the contraceptive principles/teaching is what’s in error surely - not the Church Practise or the Church Teaching.
Last edited:
A
Arwing
Guest
Perhaps you are simply not referring to such cases, but I do not see how taking a birth control pill in order to contracept can be considered “indirect” intent as can ectopic removal procedures.
With the ectopic, I am not committing an act of abortion, I am performing a medical procedure with the unintended side effect of abortion. That an evil has occurred as a result, as you say, does not mean that it is never permissible. Of course, even when a side effect is unintended it is not necessarily going to mean the action is moral. The good must also be proportionate to compensate for the bad.
As for the case of rape which you also mentioned, I suppose the argument is that it’s not quite the same as a unitive sexual act which must be ordered to procreation. Also note that preventing implantation or employing abortion is assuredly not licit in the case of rape, because while a woman may have the right to defend herself against an attack, she may not take an innocent life, whether for a good intention or not.
Last edited:
T
Tatum
Guest
Is medical contracepting taking place and intended?
When an innocent Muslim 4 yr old walks a bomb into Checkpoint Charlie is it a breaking of the Fifth to kill the child?
There are always exceptions to alleged universal principles (or rather there are times when a moral principle is not operative in situation that looks like what is proscribed).
Why is Contraception somehow especially different from every other Commandment - many of which are far graver.
Somehow we still haven’t got beyond Augustine and his less than wholesome views on sexuality.
Please don’t try and tell us that killing of the fertilised egg is not intended when the tube containing it is excised. That is far less credible than saying contracepting couples financially and emotionally at their at their wits end don’t intend to be closed off to the gift of life. Then again if you believe the ectopic thing indirect intent is credible…how much more so for this contracepting couple.
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Sure, and as hormonal contraception and modern condoms are roughly a century old or less, there’s not a whole lot of teaching on the subject.
A lot of the old texts modern Catholics try interpret as teaching about contraception - many in the Christian realm find the same words to be indicative of recreational drugs. And perhaps Onan’s sin wasn’t necessarily the sperm hitting the dirt - it was his refusal to fulfill his tribal, familial duty out of a spirit of greed.
Either way, there’s just more interpretive room here than you’re willing to admit. You’ve taken this “If I’m wrong, then Satan Wins!” position and I think it’s unnecessary. And maybe a hair prideful?
Last edited:
P
Pup7
Guest
The Church doesn’t say that taking Plan B at the ED after a rape is wrong.
Fertilization doesn’t happen immediately. It takes HOURS, which is why after 72 hours Plan B is no longer given - because it won’t work.
T
tseleehw
Guest
It’s the Church’s teaching that I am defending, not my own. There are plenty of people in this thread insisting that they know better than the Church and that successive generations of priests, bishops, and Popes have been wrong about contraception all along. If I am being prideful, then many others are as well.
Look, I get that I’m not going to change anyone’s mind here; if people don’t agree with or accept the Church’s teaching(s), that’s their business. I am merely trying to provide accurate information on what the moral teachings of the Church are. Use of contraception is illicit and immoral and has always been taught by the Church to be so. People will have to make their own decisions as they always have.
Look, I get that I’m not going to change anyone’s mind here; if people don’t agree with or accept the Church’s teaching(s), that’s their business. I am merely trying to provide accurate information on what the moral teachings of the Church are. Use of contraception is illicit and immoral and has always been taught by the Church to be so. People will have to make their own decisions as they always have.
M
MCH1
Guest
They never did:
catholicismpure.wordpress.com
It’s not an urban legend, it’s a LIE: Paul VI did NOT give permission to nuns to use contraceptives.
From Fr Z’s Blog on 20th February 2016: The other day Pope Francis, in the infamous post-Mexico airplane presser, said: Paolo VI – il grande! – in una situazione difficile, in Africa, ha p…
catholicismpure.wordpress.com
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
This whole discussion is a bit like corporate policies and procedures. There is a rule book in every corporation. Let’s say a customer wants to return something, and the rule book says “Customers can’t return things.” So the lower level employees follow the rules. But the customer is persistent and goes to the supervisor. The supervisor says, “No, the rule book says no returns. Sorry.” So the customer goes to a VP…and the VP asks why the customer wants to return the item. After hearing the explanation, the VP tells his minions to give the customer a refund and let him return the item. The rule is broken!!! But not really, of course…
A lot of people here are acting like the lower level employees: “There is a rule. We have to obey it literally.” And yes, probably in almost all cases you should obey the rule. But there are exceptions to rules, and reasons why rules don’t apply in certain circumstances. There was a “rule” that women taken in adultery were to be stoned to death. But Jesus disobeyed the rule. And there are other instances throughout the Gospels–preaching and healing on the Sabbath, etc. And then there’s that whole section where Jesus says “The Law says X, but I say Y.” I am not presenting some wild new liberal fantasy. I’m simply repeating what’s in the Gospels.
A lot of people here are acting like the lower level employees: “There is a rule. We have to obey it literally.” And yes, probably in almost all cases you should obey the rule. But there are exceptions to rules, and reasons why rules don’t apply in certain circumstances. There was a “rule” that women taken in adultery were to be stoned to death. But Jesus disobeyed the rule. And there are other instances throughout the Gospels–preaching and healing on the Sabbath, etc. And then there’s that whole section where Jesus says “The Law says X, but I say Y.” I am not presenting some wild new liberal fantasy. I’m simply repeating what’s in the Gospels.
A
Arwing
Guest
If they intend to use contraceptives to render the marital act non-procreative as means to an end I don’t see how that effect could possibly have been unintended.
Humane vitae 14: “t is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.”
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
So the report about nuns using the pill is not true then?
A
Arwing
Guest
I suppose the argument that would be made is that the victim has not committed a sexual act.
Church teaching does not seem to say that, strictly, insemination = conception must occur, but it does say that one cannot commit a sexual act where conception is deliberately frustrated.
Last edited:
M
MCH1
Guest
The evidence says it is false.
J
joeybaggz
Guest
Erika. I salute you on your courage to even post a dissenting opinion. Personally, I’m tired of the pontificators who want to lecture and convince everyone of their magnificent understanding of Jesus and His Church. I’d cite the catechism section on individual conscience and its role in the spiritual condition of a person, but I just don’t want to put up with the Roman Protestants or the Catholic Pharisees.thistle:
We disagree. But so do the cardinals, bishops, priests, etc.
Peace.
D
Dugtrio1
Guest
I thought the Church simply adapts Jesus’s unchanging morality in a way appropriate for the current time.
So for example, the Church could one day tell women to raise families, and then 200 years later tell men to respect them in the workforce, both applying “family love” in the way appropriate for the era.
Maybe the Church will change its views on birth control in the name of responsible parenting or something. I think that’s one reason why there are bishops all over the world. They can report to the Vatican about the different world cultures and world problems. Until then we should respect the teaching but maybe not be surprised if it changes; the change would be grounded in morality. The Church wouldn’t just change things to please modern society if the change were not grounded in some sort of morality.
So for example, the Church could one day tell women to raise families, and then 200 years later tell men to respect them in the workforce, both applying “family love” in the way appropriate for the era.
Maybe the Church will change its views on birth control in the name of responsible parenting or something. I think that’s one reason why there are bishops all over the world. They can report to the Vatican about the different world cultures and world problems. Until then we should respect the teaching but maybe not be surprised if it changes; the change would be grounded in morality. The Church wouldn’t just change things to please modern society if the change were not grounded in some sort of morality.
- Status