Eucharist and contraception

[AlNg]

The teaching is not in error, is it absolutely 100% incontrovertibly right

Not according to the Eastern Orthodox Church where a priest may allow a married couple to use ABC under certain restricted conditions. Is it true that the Roman Catholic Church desires reunion with the Eastern Orthodox church and does not consider them to be heretics but only schismatics? I think so, or at least that is what I have been reading with all kinds of meetings, conferences and dialogs going on between the two churches.

 

[MCH1]

Not according to the Eastern Orthodox Church where a priest may allow a married couple to use ABC under certain restricted conditions. Is it true that the Roman Catholic Church desires reunion with the Eastern Orthodox church and does not consider them to be heretics but only schismatics? I think so, or at least that is what I have been reading with all kinds of meetings, conferences and dialogs going on between the two churches.

Abortion kills a baby.

 

[thistle]

I thought that it was to be held but it wasn’t an infallible teaching. Where did the Pope or the Vatican say that the teaching was infallible?

Here is an interesting article from Catholic Answers. You can read the entire thing but if you wish you can scroll down to the section headed The Magisterium.

Birth Control | Catholic Answers Tract

Also see this by Father John Hardon. He passed away in 2000 and is recognised by the Church as a Servant of God. He was an important Catholic educator.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/CHRIST/CONFATAL.TXT

 

[Tatum]

Then how can you accept lethal self defence? Its the same ethical principle used.

 

[Tatum]

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Can we desist with the illogical setup questions please.

The issue is personal sin not objective “sin”.

 

[Tatum]

Pope Francis did…he ought to know.
And he agreed with the principles regardless.

 

[Tatum]

Why is it that contraception absolutists can never answer this simple question .

 

[MCH1]

The issue is personal sin not objective “sin”.

Objective sin is personal sin if the person committing it has full knowledge and consent.

 

[Arwing]

The answer to your question is yes. Put “yes” in front of the rest of my post and I do not see how it allows for any sort of exception to the Church’s teaching as you seem to be claiming.

 

[Tatum]

Tatum:

The issue is personal sin not objective “sin”.

Objective sin is personal sin if the person committing it has full knowledge and consent.

Indeed, but then your above statement statement no longer applies.
(“Are you a supporter of those claiming conscience to justify continuing to sin?”)

A certain conscience is the very thing that means no mortal sin is being committed because the knowledge is not there. You don’t seem to see the link between certain conscience and lack of “full knowledge and consent”.

Yes the certain conscience may be erroneous - but that doesn’t mean there is actual sin - only grave disorder.

 

[Tatum]

The answer to your question is yes. Put “yes” in front of the rest of my post and I do not see how it allows for any sort of exception to the Church’s teaching as you seem to be claiming.

I think you have lost sight of the post I was objecting to which you came in on. It was:

Use of artificial contraception to avoid pregnancy is always wrong

If you now agree with me that rape victims may choose to use artificial contraception to avoid pregnancy then in fact you do agree with me in my opposition to this weak formulation.

 

[MCH1]

Also what makes artificial contraception wrong is that sometimes the pregnancy has already occurred, and the Baby dies.

 

[Pup7]

There is zero confirmed evidence that the OCP or any other device is an abortifacient. Otherwise…how do so many women get pregnant while an IUD is inserted? (It’s relatively uncommon, but it’s not rare in the least.)

This is why Plan B is ineffective after 72 hours, and taking one Plan B pill is the equivalent of about one week’s worth of combination birth control pills at once. After 72 hours, if the egg has implanted, it cannot terminate pregnancy - and it is exponentially stronger than a single birth control pill.

Pregnancy is defined as occuring when the egg has implanted. Not when it has been fertilized. Most women have actually miscarried multiple times in their lives because most eggs that are fertilized naturally don’t implant.

I’m not advocating birth control. I’m 100% about accurate information, and saying an OCP is an abortifacient isn’t true.

 

[Tatum]

Pregnancy is defined as occuring when the egg has implanted. Not when it has been fertilized. Most women have actually miscarried multiple times in their lives because most eggs that are fertilized naturally don’t implant.

Pup7 can you elucidate your point here? Are you saying medical abortion can only be said to take place after implantation? I think Catholics would say that any artifice that causes a zygote not to implant would also be called abortion.

 

[Pup7]

I think Catholics would say that any artifice that causes a zygote not to implant would also be called abortion.

Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy.

Pregnancy cannot occur until the egg implants. When the egg implants, the woman is pregnant - regardless of where it implants (this is what an ectopic is - it implants in the wrong location).

A pill is not an abortifacient because it cannot undo implantation.

A pill can block implantation, and is contraceptive in nature (it prevents the pregnancy from occurring).

And I am Catholic. The pill is not abortifacient under current science and medical knowledge. It is assuredly contraceptive. But it is incorrect to say it can cause abortion. This is why Plan B is ineffective after 72 hours - it also can’t undo implantation. But it can block it from happening.

 

[Tatum]

Pup7 I do not deny that you are a Catholic.
However you appear to be a health professional who attempts to understand Catholic teaching in this area using strictly secular medical terminology.

I am flagging whether there is some dissonance here with the way some of these medical definitions do or do not coincide with Church terminology in this area which tends to be more philosophic and historical than purely contemporary medical.

You seem to be saying that the medical profession does not regard any artifice that prevents implantation as being properly called abortifacient?

If that is so then I believe this would be in contradiction to Church teaching. Such artifice would still be considered immoral by the Church.

It obviously isn’t the immorality of contraception (the zygote is already fertilised).
While I understand it is not fully “abortion” in the secular medical sense I believe it is still rightly considered the immoral practice of “abortion” by the Church’s use of that moral term.

Perhaps it would be better called “contra-implantation”.
Regardless, the reality is still considered immoral from the Church’s perspective as far as I know.

 

[Pup7]

Pup7 I do not deny that you are a Catholic.
However you appear to be a health professional who attempts to understand Catholic teaching in this area using strictly secular medical terminology.

No, I’m not attempting to understand Catholic teaching in medical terminology.

I’m telling you what the medical terminology is, which was the clarification you asked me to make.

Medically, the pill is not an abortifacient. In reality, it isn’t either.

I know the pill isn’t an abortifacient, but that doesn’t change any of my Catholic view of contraception.

Regardless, the reality is still considered immoral from the Church’s perspective as far as I know.

And I have never said anything to the contrary.

 

[Spyridon]

atholic practice artificial contraception and still receive the Eucharist? (I

no he cannot.

 

[Tatum]

Tatum:

Pup7 I do not deny that you are a Catholic.
However you appear to be a health professional who attempts to understand Catholic teaching in this area using strictly secular medical terminology.

I’m telling you what the medical terminology is.

As I say it is difficult to present Church Teaching if we define key words differently from how the Church actually define’s them.

I am observing that the definition of “abortion” you a re running with is different from the Church’s. Therefore stated conclusions will accordingly differ if we are not alert to this.

Here is a good definition, as far as I know, of how the Church define’s abortion:
“Abortion is any destruction of the product of human conception, whether before or after implantation in the womb.”

Here is the one you have supplied:
“Abortion is the termination of a [post implantation] pregnancy.”

These are very different definitions.

You have stated that such “a pill can block implantation”.
Consequently any artifice (eg a “pill”) that inhibits implantation must be considered abortifacient by Catholics.

Therefore we must therefore accept under this advice that such pills are indeed abortifacient in the eyes of the Church. I see no way around this conclusion if the above facts are correct.

Yet you appear to state that the pill is not abortifacient.
As I suggest, that is only the view of a medical profession running with a different definition of pregnancy/abortion.

It is not actually the teaching of the Church and it does not seem helpful to state that it is acceptable simply by using the self-interested, narrow jargon of the medical profession that ordinary Catholics on CAF cannot be expected to know - or even agree with.

 

[Pup7]

I’m running with the actual definition. I can’t accept things that I know are not true. I know that isn’t true, and it bothers me that it’s presented as fact.

An abortifacient is something that terminates a pregnancy. Pregnancy is defined by implantation of the fertilized ovum. My education tells me this is correct. I can’t walk around giving out scientifically unsound information, nor can I expect to be taken seriously professionally if I believe something that isn’t the case. Professionalism will win out here.

I have never once said contraception is moral nor right. But I know biology, as do many people.

the self-interested, narrow jargon of the medical profession that ordinary Catholics on CAF cannot be expected to know - or even agree with.

It isn’t “self interested, narrow jargon”. It’s biology. I’m not asking anyone to agree - I answered your question. Saying “ordinary Catholics on CAF cannot be expected to know” biology is pretty patronizing of a pretty well educated bunch of folks on here. And I don’t mean me.