- Status
B
bobzills
Guest
I thought that according to Catholic usage many was more than most because it is equivalent to all. According to the explanations given here and elsewhere on the Catholic Consecration of the wine, the words many and all mean the same thing.
M
mpi
Guest
The Catechism does not say what you want it to say on this. The Catechism says that there are criteria for determining if NFP to avoid pregnancy is sinful. Not feeling like having another child right now is insufficientOkay.New to the English language are you? “Many” is less than “most” which is less than “vast majority” in normal everyday usage. Besides, your argument for “vast majority” doesn’t match the Catechism.
I’ll go with the Catechism.
M
mpi
Guest
It is laughable to deny that NFP, as practiced by American Catholics, is not sinful. The TFR (Total Fertility Rate, # of children per women) is hovering at or under the replacement rate for a population to sustain itself. That is arrogance. That is conceit. That is sinful. One of the most affluent groups of people on this planet are American Catholics and they sin by denying God’s first commandment to go forth and multiply. American Catholics pervert NFP for their selfish desires.
R
RobertLGarrett
Guest
Correct. I quoted the Catechism and know exactly what it says. Your first post had stricter requirements than the Catechism. Also, your assumption with no evidence, is that the vast majority of people who use NFP do so because they’re “not feeling like having another child right now.”
I don’t believe that is so, based on the people I know who use NFP. Most Catholics who “don’t feel like having a child right now,” use artificial birth control which is truly sad. It would be more helpful to the Catholic Church to focus on that group IMO.
We use NFP because my wife had serious health issues during her last pregnancy, and she does not want to risk her life. Additionally, we are struggling financially. I hope that rises to your high level.
IMO the “arrogance” and “conceit” are in your posts on this subject.
M
mpi
Guest
Catholics had a higher birth rate during the great depression than right now. There is a problem with overusing the “struggling financially” argument. Most people who are struggling financially in the US have too much arrogance to downscale when times are tough. Pride is one of the 7 deadly sins.Correct. I quoted the Catechism and know exactly what it says. Your first post had stricter requirements than the Catechism. Also, your assumption with no evidence, is that the vast majority of people who use NFP do so because they’re “not feeling like having another child right now.”
I don’t believe that is so, based on the people I know who use NFP. Most Catholics who “don’t feel like having a child right now,” use artificial birth control which is truly sad. It would be more helpful to the Catholic Church to focus on that group IMO.
We use NFP because my wife had serious health issues during her last pregnancy, and she does not want to risk her life. Additionally, we are struggling financially. I hope that rises to your high level.
IMO the “arrogance” and “conceit” are in your posts on this subject.
Serious health issues is sufficient to use NFP, IMO. I hope things work out for you and your wife w.r.t this.
The vast majority of people I know using NFP to avoid pregnancy have big homes and 6 figure incomes and no health problems. How this is not sinning is beyond me. They use the excuse about financial difficulties even though they could rent a home at 1/4 the monthly cost of what they are currently paying for a mortgage.
R
RobertLGarrett
Guest
Then you have a very small circle. You shouldn’t judge all Catholics on such a small group.
I agree that we have a problem in the society as a whole with selfishness, and this includes Catholics. However, we need to teach NFP as part of the culture of life. Working in harmony with their bodies and understanding the fedundity of marriage will lead to larger families - maybe not the 8-10 kid families some of my fellow NFP-users at our parish, but even more 4-5 kid families would be good to see. As I said, many more Catholics (the “vast majority” one could say) use artificial birth control.
M
mpi
Guest
This link points out the degree to which American Catholics (even the devout ones attending Mass weekly) have rejected God’s commandment to go forth and multiply.
popline.org/docs/0979/077988.html
So I am judging Catholics by the statistics, not simply the Catholics I know. The statistics show an embrace of the culture of death. I am sure that most of these Catholics with small families have some excuse for keeping their families small. Most of these excuses are junk.
The problem is that I think most of these Catholics have a clear conscience. Homilies should make it clear that those who can have large families, but choose not to do so, are being immoral and sinning by purposely avoiding pregnancy.
R
Red_Beard
Guest
IMO, this should be a new thread. Maybe “Can you use NFP illicitly?” or “How big should families be?”
It is a conversation worth having but it clouds the issue BruceK is working on.
Anyone reading this needs to understand that everyone arguing right now agrees that NFP can be used licitly and can also be used in a sinful manner.
~ Red Beard
It is a conversation worth having but it clouds the issue BruceK is working on.
Anyone reading this needs to understand that everyone arguing right now agrees that NFP can be used licitly and can also be used in a sinful manner.
~ Red Beard
R
RobertLGarrett
Guest
Not that it has anything to do with the discussion at hand, but that is being corrected. The prayer will be…
Pax Christi,
Robert
B
bobzills
Guest
So they have changed their teaching again on this? If they have changed their teaching on this, what is to prevent a change in teaching on artificial birth control sometime in the future?
R
RobertLGarrett
Guest
It isn’t a change in teaching. The Latin original wasn’t changed…just the incorrect English translation. There is no connection to the changing of dogma.
B
bobzills
Guest
You implied above that many was less than all.
This was not taught. It was universally taught in the USA Catholic teaching that many and all are the same in this context.
So the universal teaching of the Catholic Church on this was false?
R
Red_Beard
Guest
Not everything the Church teaches is on the same level. Some things, like contraception are definitively defined as being contrary to the natural law. Such things cannot change.
Some things, such as Married Priests, specifics of the liturgy (like this prayer, how people receive the Eucharist, etc.) are called disciplines of the Church. They can change at any time. They are rules that the Church uses to govern itself. They are Her rules and we, as Catholics, are bound by them (what you bind on earth…) even though they may change.
Fortunately, the Church makes the distinctions clear between what can change and what can’t. If you are ever in doubt about whether a thing can change or not, ask an apologist. That’s what they get paid the big bucks for.
God bless,
~ Red Beard
R
RobertLGarrett
Guest
I’m sorry, but you will have to provide me some link to that “USA Catholic teaching.” As far as I can tell, it was crummy translation of the Latin. Just like the Creed which will now read “I believe” instead of “We believe”…or did the Church teach that “I” and “we” are the same thing?
Btw…I didn’t “imply,” I stated. But, what I was talking about was normal usage of the language. In less English is your second language, I think most people understand that “many” implies a number less than “all.”
B
bobzills
Guest
And by virtue of development of doctrine, the teaching can change in view of new developments in understanding?Not everything the Church teaches is on the same level. Some things, like contraception are definitively defined as being contrary to the natural law. Such things cannot change.
Some things, such as Married Priests, specifics of the liturgy (like this prayer, how people receive the Eucharist, etc.) are called disciplines of the Church. They can change at any time. They are rules that the Church uses to govern itself. They are Her rules and we, as Catholics, are bound by them (what you bind on earth…) even though they may change.
Fortunately, the Church makes the distinctions clear between what can change and what can’t. If you are ever in doubt about whether a thing can change or not, ask an apologist. That’s what they get paid the big bucks for.
God bless,
~ Red Beard
If the teaching on artificial birth control was unchangeable doctrine, it would seem that there would have been no reason for the Church to set up an official committee to look into the question of whether or not the teahcing could be changed. And as I recollect, the committee said that the teaching could be changed.
R
Red_Beard
Guest
Bobzills,
Could you please post a link to information you are citing? If I remember correctly it had to do with the use of condoms in conjunction with AIDS.
All that I could find to this effect was this:
zenit.org/article-23393?l=english
zenit.org/article-23336?l=english
Neither one sounds like the Church changing Her position on contraception. The Vatican website didn’t have anything about an official committee discussing contraception, either.
I am interested in your sources.
God bless.
~ Red Beard
Could you please post a link to information you are citing? If I remember correctly it had to do with the use of condoms in conjunction with AIDS.
All that I could find to this effect was this:
zenit.org/article-23393?l=english
zenit.org/article-23336?l=english
Neither one sounds like the Church changing Her position on contraception. The Vatican website didn’t have anything about an official committee discussing contraception, either.
I am interested in your sources.
God bless.
~ Red Beard
B
boreal
Guest
Dear all,
I find it fascinating how rarely discussions of Humanae Vitae step away from this point or that point, each one debatable word by word. The discussion is, I think, too narrow.
Humanae Vitae and The Theology of the Body are both teachings that situate themselves in a much wider, and more fundamental, moral context than these discussions usually admit.
Perhaps a better entry point to the discussion is to limit it to the case of sacramentally married couples – that is the couple has been married in the Catholic Church and the sacrament is valid. Other circumstances can be set aside for the moment.
Then one can look at the marriage vow and the various clauses in that vow. The vow includes the promise to be open to children. The vow also includes the promise to love each other in sickness and in health.
In this context Humanae Vitae needs no justification since it supports the promises made by the couple. What does need justification is artificial birth control (ABC). ABC clearly violates the openness to children – it says that this act at this time is not open to children.
However, I think the more important effect is that ABC also violates the promise to love each other in sickness and in health. For both the man and the woman fertility is a sign of health. ABC is a clear and active rejection of loving each other, including each other’s healthy fertility – I love you totally and completely EXCEPT for your fertility.
Similarly for couples suffering infertility who seek to “fix” the infertility outside of the natural marriage act – I love you totally and completely EXCEPT for your infertility.
Seen from this point of view, the couple’s own commitment to each other, ideas like the possibility of the teaching “evolving” or subtle distinctions between natural and artificial means might be simpler to understand.
These teachings related to the sexual act support the marriage vow. Anyone suggesting that these teachings might change has to, to my mind, first talk about changing the marriage vow to include an exception for fertility. That, I think, might be very very hard to do. It would require a reasoned justification for disrespect of women (and men) as complete persons, including their fertility.
I agree that the fundamental reason for ABC is that men and women think they have to protect themselves from each other, as though fertility was a physical assault.
But, really, to ask the Church to change this teaching in order to accommodate a crippled view of married love and fundamental respect for each other seems, to put it mildly, somewhat unrealistic.
In the first chapters of the Theology of the Body, John-Paul proposes we “go back to the beginning” meaning of course Genesis. Perhaps in these discussions of Humanae Vitae and related teachings, we could all go back to our own “in the beginning” and situate ourselves in the context of that marriage vow. For most of us I expect that is the context since most of us have spoken or agreed to those words: open to children and in sickness and health – and most of us, in our heart, had no reservations in that moment.
I find it fascinating how rarely discussions of Humanae Vitae step away from this point or that point, each one debatable word by word. The discussion is, I think, too narrow.
Humanae Vitae and The Theology of the Body are both teachings that situate themselves in a much wider, and more fundamental, moral context than these discussions usually admit.
Perhaps a better entry point to the discussion is to limit it to the case of sacramentally married couples – that is the couple has been married in the Catholic Church and the sacrament is valid. Other circumstances can be set aside for the moment.
Then one can look at the marriage vow and the various clauses in that vow. The vow includes the promise to be open to children. The vow also includes the promise to love each other in sickness and in health.
In this context Humanae Vitae needs no justification since it supports the promises made by the couple. What does need justification is artificial birth control (ABC). ABC clearly violates the openness to children – it says that this act at this time is not open to children.
However, I think the more important effect is that ABC also violates the promise to love each other in sickness and in health. For both the man and the woman fertility is a sign of health. ABC is a clear and active rejection of loving each other, including each other’s healthy fertility – I love you totally and completely EXCEPT for your fertility.
Similarly for couples suffering infertility who seek to “fix” the infertility outside of the natural marriage act – I love you totally and completely EXCEPT for your infertility.
Seen from this point of view, the couple’s own commitment to each other, ideas like the possibility of the teaching “evolving” or subtle distinctions between natural and artificial means might be simpler to understand.
These teachings related to the sexual act support the marriage vow. Anyone suggesting that these teachings might change has to, to my mind, first talk about changing the marriage vow to include an exception for fertility. That, I think, might be very very hard to do. It would require a reasoned justification for disrespect of women (and men) as complete persons, including their fertility.
I agree that the fundamental reason for ABC is that men and women think they have to protect themselves from each other, as though fertility was a physical assault.
But, really, to ask the Church to change this teaching in order to accommodate a crippled view of married love and fundamental respect for each other seems, to put it mildly, somewhat unrealistic.
In the first chapters of the Theology of the Body, John-Paul proposes we “go back to the beginning” meaning of course Genesis. Perhaps in these discussions of Humanae Vitae and related teachings, we could all go back to our own “in the beginning” and situate ourselves in the context of that marriage vow. For most of us I expect that is the context since most of us have spoken or agreed to those words: open to children and in sickness and health – and most of us, in our heart, had no reservations in that moment.
M
MrsDeeDee
Guest
“ABC clearly violates the openness to children – it says that this act at this time is not open to children.”
I have a thought/question…
If this statement is true…Wouldn’t we be able to fill in the ABC with NFP? ABC is just as ‘not open for children’ as NFP. The couple makes a decision to make love planning on not making a baby is both scenarios. There is a chance you can get pregnant from NFP and ABC.
Thoughts?
I have a thought/question…
If this statement is true…Wouldn’t we be able to fill in the ABC with NFP? ABC is just as ‘not open for children’ as NFP. The couple makes a decision to make love planning on not making a baby is both scenarios. There is a chance you can get pregnant from NFP and ABC.
Thoughts?
- Status