J
John_Higgins
Guest
I have a quote. Who do you think wrote it?
John
- Status
J
Julianna
Guest
oh, yeah, people will ask if you are finished…and some will answer, and I did, yes. But I would never, never, say a child was a mistake.
R
rpp
Guest
This has the appearance of a set up. When you drop the bomb, please cite the reference so that it can be reviewed completely and in context.
K
Karin
Guest
WOW…you really like to assume things…
who is to say that mary and bob dont have secondary fertility issues…who are you to assume that they are doing anything wrong and are not open to more kids???
G
gorman64
Guest
Church in the World of Today, nos. 50-51, with note 14: AAS 58 (1966), 1070-1073 [cf. TPS XI, 292-293]; also no. 87, p. 1110 [cf. TPS XI, 319-320].
What is your point?
G
gorman64
Guest
In general, what Julianna wrote is correct…of course one should not form any opinion about an individual couple without knowing specifics…but in generalit indicates a contraceptive mentality. Just because we can’t know exactly who is guilty of this…does not mean it does not exist. It is a fact.
K
Karin
Guest
It does exist I agree…but to assume something without knowing for sure or as a fact :tsktsk:
G
gorman64
Guest
In general, it is just an observation of a reality. I don’t think anyone is saying we should judge individuals without knowing their situation explicitly. Many Catholics tell you these things…because they see nothing wrong with it…it is normal to precisely control (or at least try to control) how many children you have.
G
Genesis315
Guest
It is from Pope Paul VI’s encyclical, Populorum Progressio. Here is the quote in context:
“37. It is true that too frequently an accelerated demographic increase adds its own difficulties to the problems of development: the size of the population increases more rapidly than available resources, and things are found to have reached apparently an impasse. From that moment the temptation is great to check the demographic increase by means of radical measures. It is certain that public authorities can intervene, within the limit of their competence, by favoring the availability of appropriate information and by adopting suitable measures, provided that these be in conformity with the moral law and that they respect the rightful freedom of married couples. Where the inalienable right to marriage and procreation is lacking, human dignity has ceased to exist. Finally, it is for the parents to decide, with full knowledge of the matter, on the number of their children, taking into account their responsibilities towards God, themselves, the children they have already brought into the world, and the community to which they belong. In all this they must follow the demands of their own conscience enlightened by God’s law authentically interpreted, and sustained by confidence in Him.”
Which basically is taken From the Second Vatican Council’s Gaudium et Spes :
“But there are many today who maintain that the increase in world population, or at least the population increase in some countries, must be radically curbed by every means possible and by any kind of intervention on the part of public authority. In view of this contention, the council urges everyone to guard against solutions, whether publicly or privately supported, or at times even imposed, which are contrary to the moral law. For in keeping with man’s inalienable right to marry and generate children, a decision concerning the number of children they will have depends on the right judgment of the parents and it cannot in any way be left to the judgment of public authority. But since the judgment of the parents presupposes a rightly formed conscience, it is of the utmost importance that the way be open for everyone to develop a correct and genuinely human responsibility which respects the divine law and takes into consideration the circumstances of the situation and the time. But sometimes this requires an improvement in educational and social conditions, and, above all, formation in religion or at least a complete moral training. Men should discreetly be informed, furthermore, of scientific advances in exploring methods whereby spouses can be helped in regulating the number of their children and whose safeness has been well proven and whose harmony with the moral order has been ascertained.”
G
gorman64
Guest
It is taken from Paul VI’s Populorum Progressio and this passage is footnoted from Gaudium Et Spes.
Humanae Vitae and Gaudium Et Spes uphold the prohibition of artifical birth control, but they further emphasize family planning and population control through “natural means”.
This occurs because of the stressing of the unitive ends of marriage over the procreative ends. This is opposed to the constant teaching of the Church, which has always ordered the ends or purposes of marriage as follows:
Humanae Vitae and Gaudium Et Spes uphold the prohibition of artifical birth control, but they further emphasize family planning and population control through “natural means”.
This occurs because of the stressing of the unitive ends of marriage over the procreative ends. This is opposed to the constant teaching of the Church, which has always ordered the ends or purposes of marriage as follows:
F
fix
Guest
The teaching is infallible by the ordinary and universal magisterium. Why is that ever doubted?
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
The National Centers for Health keeps the statistic, their web site is www.cdc.gov. I post some of their stuff in another thread. Just for a general overview
Hope that helps
-
- about 81% report to have used contraception during their last embrace
- Contraception use increases with education, college educated white people report over 90% contraception use. On the lower side of the scale is school age minorities which still usually score over 60% use.
Hope that helps
R
rpp
Guest
The National Centers for Health keeps the statistic, their web site is www.cdc.gov. I post some of their stuff in another thread. Just for a general overview
There are a lot of people in the communion line who will likely, at the very least, not be sainted.
Presuming on God’s mercy is may be one of the most common sins.
C
cialovesyou
Guest
Randy Carson;:
Canon 749
“§3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.”
Manifestly Evident? You ask 3 theologians and you get 4 opinions.
Sorry, as much as I agree that artificial contraception is an intrinsic evil, Humanae Vitae simply can not be considered infallible, as evidenced by the fact that no-one agrees it is.
Furthur, the document does not use the term “definitive” in respect to the setting forth of the doctrine.
Code of Canon Law doesnt agree.
Canon 749
“§3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.”
Manifestly Evident? You ask 3 theologians and you get 4 opinions.
Sorry, as much as I agree that artificial contraception is an intrinsic evil, Humanae Vitae simply can not be considered infallible, as evidenced by the fact that no-one agrees it is.
Furthur, the document does not use the term “definitive” in respect to the setting forth of the doctrine.
D
dylanschrader
Guest
Current theologians don’t need to agree. The majority of the faithful don’t need to agree. The Church’s teaching on sexual ethics through the ages has not been accepted by every generation, but the fact that the teaching has remained consistent–and the fact that it’s been declared “irreformable” make manifest its infallibility by virtue of the ordinary and universal magisterium.
C
cialovesyou
Guest
Dylan,
if we cant agree it is an infallible document, then it is clearly not, as it needs to be manifest. I would say the majority of theologians I read on the subject dont believe it to be infallible, even though most of them support it.
I will need to ask someone more informed than I about exactly what the Council for Family is saying before I make a judgement on their contribution, and will get back to you when I have done this.
But as for the simple question which was asked earlier “Is Humanae Vitae to be considered an infallible document?” The answer must be “no”, as it is not making such claim in the text, nor is there any other signals of it being “manifestly evident”.
if we cant agree it is an infallible document, then it is clearly not, as it needs to be manifest. I would say the majority of theologians I read on the subject dont believe it to be infallible, even though most of them support it.
I will need to ask someone more informed than I about exactly what the Council for Family is saying before I make a judgement on their contribution, and will get back to you when I have done this.
But as for the simple question which was asked earlier “Is Humanae Vitae to be considered an infallible document?” The answer must be “no”, as it is not making such claim in the text, nor is there any other signals of it being “manifestly evident”.
B
Brendan
Guest
The Document is an articulation of the infallible teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium.
F
fix
Guest
I cannot believe there is still any debate on this subject. The ordinary and universal magisterium has said contraception is intrinsically evil. Now, can anyone provide evidence this is not true? We can read CCC or HV or many other sources.
B
Brendan
Guest
You have a large misunderstanding on what ‘manifest’ means.
It means to be made publically known, NOT to be publically agreed upon. The concurance of every theologian is not required. In fact, the personal opinions of theologians have no bearing on a doctrine being manifest.
The teachings of HV have been made publically known.
It has also been made manifest that these teachings are required to be held as definitive and irreformable.
That is all that is required to comply with the Canon.
- Status