- Status
H
hoping4more
Guest
What about the debt?
Anyways it is a little weird for the man to be the one trying to hold up catholic teaching since he must be the physical initiator. By weird, I mean illicit or gray area in an already gray area.
Anyways it is a little weird for the man to be the one trying to hold up catholic teaching since he must be the physical initiator. By weird, I mean illicit or gray area in an already gray area.
Q
QwertyGirl
Guest
I disagree. Catholics seem to believe spouses have some sort of ownership over each other’s bodies. People like me believe that is an immoral approach. To each his own, but we don’t need legal encroachment on this area of personal choice.
H
hoping4more
Guest
Francis allows for discernment on contraception in emergency cases, spokesman says
NCR Today: Vatican spokesman Jesuit Fr. Federico Lombardi said Feb. 19 that Catholics with well-formed consciences can decide to use contraceptives "in cases of particular emergency."
www.ncronline.org
What???
Pff… I am sorry.
I am shocked too! …(But not as you, as presumed… )
I have not study extensively those doctrine, so i will go on simplifications, and approximation.
1/ we don’t need to trust National Catholic Reporter, which is very liberal on doctrine, for Catholic orthodoxy on sexual/ procreation topics
2/Pope VI never said clearly that religious woman who faces rapes in war context can use contraceptives (the pill). It’s an urban legend. And a little more complicated.
This stence is older, “conceptualized” in 1961 by three theologians, and the Congregation of The Saint-Office (the old Congreagation for Doctrine of the Faith) never contradict it. And no pope after. So it’s become a “commom” and learned doctrine of Catholic theology. According to this doctrine, abortion is always evil vs contraception…
3/The Lombardi stance go far more than this stance!! Zika is not a rape!
4/I believe that Lombardi stance is far more than Pope Francis. He spoke of that preventing pregnancy is not an absolute evil. And not the same thing as abortion. So I don’t think that we can interpret this as contraception. We are free to heard what we want to heard. (then, It is just an “interview”. Not an encyclical.)
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20101221_luce-del-mondo_en.html
Paul VI et les religieuses violées au Congo (sorry it’s in French, but It is my main source).
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pope-contraception-zika_us_56c5fd29e4b0c3c5505405f7
Always searching exemptions, and give some exemples can be confusing for faithfull people, more for them who struggle in their life. And leads more voices to a changeand liberate the doctrine, because it can lead to inconsistency
I am shocked too! …(But not as you, as presumed… )
I have not study extensively those doctrine, so i will go on simplifications, and approximation.
1/ we don’t need to trust National Catholic Reporter, which is very liberal on doctrine, for Catholic orthodoxy on sexual/ procreation topics
2/Pope VI never said clearly that religious woman who faces rapes in war context can use contraceptives (the pill). It’s an urban legend. And a little more complicated.
This stence is older, “conceptualized” in 1961 by three theologians, and the Congregation of The Saint-Office (the old Congreagation for Doctrine of the Faith) never contradict it. And no pope after. So it’s become a “commom” and learned doctrine of Catholic theology. According to this doctrine, abortion is always evil vs contraception…
3/The Lombardi stance go far more than this stance!! Zika is not a rape!
4/I believe that Lombardi stance is far more than Pope Francis. He spoke of that preventing pregnancy is not an absolute evil. And not the same thing as abortion. So I don’t think that we can interpret this as contraception. We are free to heard what we want to heard. (then, It is just an “interview”. Not an encyclical.)
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20101221_luce-del-mondo_en.html
Paul VI et les religieuses violées au Congo (sorry it’s in French, but It is my main source).
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pope-contraception-zika_us_56c5fd29e4b0c3c5505405f7
Always searching exemptions, and give some exemples can be confusing for faithfull people, more for them who struggle in their life. And leads more voices to a changeand liberate the doctrine, because it can lead to inconsistency
I have never see a recent Church official document that uses the term “debt”. Sorry.
It’s not that this term is not valid anymore, but since the theology of the Body, we spoke more of marital embrace. It’s not the same thing. the first is a due, the second a communion of persons.
So, for the debt, in this circonstances, it’s because the Church believes collaborate in this evil could prevents others evils, such as adultery or divorce. Thoses sins have always social, Church and pastoral consequences that are painfull. So collaborated with this privated sin is seen as less harmfull.
The person (in this case, the man) who do not and object contraception should not make the sexual proposition, or make something that will lead the other to make that step. He is just allowed to agree.
The man should not initiate sex anymore.
And yes, I agree with you.
This collaboration is already a gray area. That mean consent to a sin, even if we do not do it ourselves. Beceause if the 2 have to consent to sex, otherwise it will be a rape.
It’s not 100% clean… and can’t.
And yes, I agree, It could seen as more difficut for a man, because the physical implication is much more important. Otherwise, it will not work well…
Not an easy way. Which can leads to many conjugal problems too…
It’s not that this term is not valid anymore, but since the theology of the Body, we spoke more of marital embrace. It’s not the same thing. the first is a due, the second a communion of persons.
So, for the debt, in this circonstances, it’s because the Church believes collaborate in this evil could prevents others evils, such as adultery or divorce. Thoses sins have always social, Church and pastoral consequences that are painfull. So collaborated with this privated sin is seen as less harmfull.
The person (in this case, the man) who do not and object contraception should not make the sexual proposition, or make something that will lead the other to make that step. He is just allowed to agree.
The man should not initiate sex anymore.
And yes, I agree with you.
This collaboration is already a gray area. That mean consent to a sin, even if we do not do it ourselves. Beceause if the 2 have to consent to sex, otherwise it will be a rape.
It’s not 100% clean… and can’t.
And yes, I agree, It could seen as more difficut for a man, because the physical implication is much more important. Otherwise, it will not work well…
Not an easy way. Which can leads to many conjugal problems too…
- Status