S
shelby_sun
Guest
I did not ask you if you follow fasting practices as they are today, I asked why they changed? Was the church wrong before when fasting was just the cup of coffee? That is what I asked.
How do catholic women or men justify their consciences with using contraception?
- Status
S
Suslar
Guest
It did not change (although it could since it is not Dogma). You are still to fast. If you need to take food, The Church in her wisdom & mercy allows it. The “guidelines” were suggested because people like to know limits. Or to paraphrase Jesus, allowances were made because of the hardness of your hearts.
Certainly, as a Catholic, you know there are differences between Core Beliefs, Teachings and practices. Core Beliefs are the Dogma of the Church that cannot change. The Sacredness of all life falls in this category. Teachings are the Doctrine which can change under certain circumstances and is contained in Canon Law and Papal Encyclicals, et. al… But our practices - like use of sacramentals, devotions to Saints, liturgical postures, and fasting (among others) CAN CHANGE as needed. These are the traditions that come from the local churches and are adapted to different times and places. These customs can be modified, retained or abandoned to suit the spiritual needs of the people.
S
shelby_sun
Guest
Your right. But when the church does that, do you think it helps people follow dogma. I mean, at one point the church fully expected everyone to fast, now because people didn’t want to suffer that much the church changed its position. Now I never expect nor I am saying they ever should, change their dogma on contraception, but when they do what they do with traditions, and then do not teach about NFP, what do you really expect.
I am not in that group and I have fully said that. I do not believe in the teaching on NFP vs. BC teaching from the church, especially when I have three children. Basically I had to decide to use it or end my marriage, not having sex like some have said would have ended my marriage soon. My husband finally had surgery which is why I am no longer on it, which I didn’t want to say before because it doesn’t change my feeling.
It just amazes me to know that their are so many people out there who think they know everything right about what God wants and believes that knowing the Catholic church says or decides is never wrong in all different situations. I do not. That is why I will not ask for forgiveness on something I don;t agree with but still know it is against the church. I find it hard to believe that their are people out there that are OK with doing the same sin over and over only to ask for forgiveness week after week because they know God will forgive them, but that s seen as OK>
S
Soren_Itenu
Guest
The Church’s teachings = God’s teachings. Period. Even on things that are morally praiseworthy but not morally obligatory. It’s about binding and loosing. It’s about obedience. God has given the Church authority on moral matters. That’s it. You, Shelby, are not the authority on moral matters…even over your own life. The Church is. Only the Church. It’s your pride that won’t let you obey. You must serve Christ and His Church. You must say with Our Lady that you will serve, or you say with Satan that you will not serve. That’s your God-given right. But what you’re wrong about is the waaah waaah waaah the Church doesn’t know what it’s talking about.
Wrong. The Church does know. The Church has the authority, not you!
Wrong. The Church does know. The Church has the authority, not you!
S
shelby_sun
Guest
I, Soren, have never claimed to be an authority on anything, especially moral teaching of any faith, period! Please state where I have, not your interpretation of what I said, but the exact words please! There are far better people on this site that are far better experts on the moral teachings of the Catholic church.
God has given us free will, sir, and on this and many other topics I am a sinner, as our you. I cannot feel something that is not there, and you can preach to me and many others, but that won’t change things. I have given it up to God and He will judge me as he sees fit.
So the church knew what it was talking about in every case throughout history without error. Is that what you are saying? I can tell you right now that Pope Francis would not agree with that at all! On moral teachings yes, but the church has gone astray many time over history, which has lowered peoples’ opinion of it in all areas. It must take some of the responsibility on this topic, not for me, but in general.
S
Soren_Itenu
Guest
I’m talking only about moral teachings. On those, the Church is free of error. Contraception is a moral teaching. The Church says don’t contracept. So, obey! Don’t contracept.
S
Suslar
Guest
I don’t want to be misunderstood, so let me reiterate - the practice did not change. The Church does fully expect all her members to fast on days of fasting and on other days as desired in atonement for sins or offering for salvation of souls. The Church did set some outer limits in response to those who needed such strict guidance. My quote was:
“It did not change (although it could since it is not Dogma). You are still to fast. If you need to take food, The Church in her wisdom & mercy allows it. The “guidelines” were suggested because people like to know limits. Or to paraphrase Jesus, allowances were made because of the hardness of your hearts.”
Fasting is NOT dogma. (Just saying for clarification purposes).
I don’t know what you mean about not teaching NFP. I know info is available to anyone who seeks info.
The Dogma is the sanctity and sacredness of life - ALL life. That does not change and it permeates all Catholic belief.
As stated earlier, if you are only using CAF as a platform to air your sins, please know no one here can offer you anything but prayer. In addition, if “not having sex . . .would have ended your marriage soon,” then by definition, you are most likely not in a Sacramental covenant marriage. That is sad. It can become Sacramental, but that would require both partners to understand and practice the duties of a faithful Catholic spouse and receive absolution in Reconciliation. Since I do not hold responsibility for the salvation of your soul, it would be best to discuss this matter with a competent priest. Three children is not a valid reason for sin. (Although it may gain you sympathy in the penance assigned!)
If you are inferring that I am a know-it-all, you would be mistaken. I don’t know everything about what God wants, but I do attempt to listen for His direction. It is absurd to think any human being could be possible of complete knowledge of God. Yet, at some point, people mature in their spirituality to be able to hear God’s voice in the community of believers . . .perhaps even those on CAF
It is likewise ridiculous to assume the Church cannot change practices in different situations. The Catholic Church is both the spotless, perfect Bride of Christ and also a institutional structure at the same time. As such, the customs do move and live with the people. That part is like all human institutional structures. If a group agrees to both its bylaws and to meet on a certain day, but later decides to change the meeting date, that does not negate the bylaws or principles upon which the group was founded.
So seriously, besides lamenting the fact that you have 3 kids and refuse to follow Church teaching, what is your purpose in posting? Do you have additional questions about the Church?
S
Soren_Itenu
Guest
As for fasting, it’s not the fast, per se, that is moral. It’s the obedience. The Church makes something praiseworthy obligatory? Then do it!
S
Suslar
Guest
Yes, the Church knew what She was talking about throughout all of history on every topic for which She had competent authority to speak - those of Faith and morals. In those two areas, She has NEVER failed and NEVER erred. Ever.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
The point is to keep up the argument and stir up dissension if possible.
S
Suslar
Guest
oh . . . I see
S
Suslar
Guest
I guess I can add two more things to the OP’s list of how people justify their consciences . . . .
- They do not accept the fact that there are some immutable, unchangeable Truths.
- they are moral relativists
S
shelby_sun
Guest
I think that has been said in many ways already.
S
shelby_sun
Guest
Well it seems something you are very good at, so good luck to you. Fine jobs.
J
jmcrae
Guest
No, the Church was not “wrong” before, nor is it “wrong” today. The point is not what kind of fasting is required at this time or at that time, but whether or not the people involved are obedient to those who are charged with the care of their souls.
People who disobeyed the laws of fasting in 1910 by eating a meal didn’t get released from Hell in 1983 merely because the law changed in 1983 to allow for a meal - their sin was not the meal itself, but their disobedience to their Bishops, and their attitude of “I am so much smarter than them.”
We get to Heaven by being obedient in every possible way to our Bishops and to the Church. We are foot soldiers in the army of God; if we are told to turn left, we turn left, and then if we are later told to turn right, then we turn right. Turning right doesn’t mean that it was “wrong” to turn left before.
S
Suslar
Guest
S
shelby_sun
Guest
Really, so explain to me, Suslar, how we started out with the Commandment " thou shall not kill", which would be one of the big moral teaching of the church, yes?; to the church accepting the death penalty in certain case if it was to protect mankind until I believe in some point until the 1960s. How is that not altering a moral teaching and more a mortal sin, one of the biggest? You don’t even have to go onto the people the church killed itself in the mane of God. The Commandment is and was “THOU SHALL NOT KILL”, PERIOD! ???
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
Please start another thread, perhaps in the Moral Theology forum. This thread is supposed to be on the justification of contraception. Since the OP has deserted his/her thread, it’s probably time to stop.Really, so explain to me, Suslar, how we started out with the Commandment " thou shall not kill", which would be one of the big moral teaching of the church, yes?; to the church accepting the death penalty in certain case if it was to protect mankind until I believe in some point until the 1960s. How is that not altering a moral teaching and more a mortal sin, one of the biggest? You don’t even have to go onto the people the church killed itself in the mane of God. The Commandment is and was “THOU SHALL NOT KILL”, PERIOD! ???
S
Suslar
Guest
Ok, we started out with the Commandment “Thou shall not kill” and the other 9 with Moses on Mt. Sinai. Absolutely a Dogmatic teaching; it cannot change and has not changed. Moreover, a core belief or teaching that belongs to the corpus of Faith and Morals is infallible and cannot be dissented from without sin. Without believing that – which you already said you do not and that you do not care – it will be difficult for you to understand. But if you’d like to try, I will attempt an explanation.Really, so explain to me, Suslar, how we started out with the Commandment " thou shall not kill", which would be one of the big moral teaching of the church, yes?; to the church accepting the death penalty in certain case if it was to protect mankind until I believe in some point until the 1960s. How is that not altering a moral teaching and more a mortal sin, one of the biggest? You don’t even have to go onto the people the church killed itself in the mane of God. The Commandment is and was “THOU SHALL NOT KILL”, PERIOD! ???
Core beliefs and dogmatic teachings do not change; our human understanding can change. While we cannot ever know everything about God, we can come to understand a bit more than we did as children. The Dogma is not a moving target – but we have the capacity to mature in our spirituality. We can change.
The Church has always recognized the tension between the death penalty and the 5th Commandment. However, the Church has to honor not just the 5th commandment, but also the 8th too.
Look at this statement from the Catechism of the Council of Trent:
“The power of life and death is permitted to certain civil magistrates because theirs is the responsibility under law to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment [Thy shall not kill], such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent lives.” - Part III, 5, #4, emphasis added
The moral principle that applies here is life. (Interestingly, it’s also the same moral principle that applies to the issue of contraception).
In past times, the Church held the belief that the death penalty allowed society to balance the right to life for people overall. Things are different now. It’s why the institutional church is alive and why our practices can change – we don’t live in the 1st century or in the Middle Ages. We have more knowledge now and are better able to understand than many of our ancestors, therefore we can apply natural law with a different understanding. There are certainly cases where taking a life is justified. I’m a bit surprised you did not mention war (although I am certain just war theory is covered in threads under the heading of Morals)
I might suggest you read this piece by Avery Cardinal Dulles. catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0461.html
Would love to hear your thoughts on Cardinal Dulles’ article.
S
Suslar
Guest
OOPS! I was typing as you were posting. I do concur. Not sure if Shelby is grasping at straws or has legitimate questions to help her in understanding. . . I was assuming the later. But it is time to start a new thread with the new concerns. . . .
Peace all!
- Status