I just cannot get over this one issue...and it's keeping me from being Catholic

[fhansen]

First of all, let me just put my life in perspective (I think that is an important part of this equation) so that you can understand where I am coming from before outlining the major thing keeping me away from really engaging myself in the Church. I am 24-years-old, currently in law school, married (in the Catholic Church), and I have always been a very spiritual person. I grew up in a Catholic middle class home in a rural town in the middle of New Hampshire, but my parents never really taught me the ins and outs of the Catholic faith, and my father, who still identifies himself as Catholic, does not completely accept the Church and believes other religions have some small amounts of faith to offer. I went to Sunday school growing, was in the choir, and never really understood what it all meant.

Once I got older, I was still very spiritual; I prayed every night, but I didn’t get too involved in thinking about whether Jesus was actually God or just a moral teacher, whether Protestants are valid as a sect of Christianity, etc. Then, however, I met my wife…and my new-found father-in-law, a devout Catholic, encouraged me to look in various directions to help find my faith. Over time, I slowly (agonizingly so) found answers to most (nearly all) of my very difficult questions. I started not even believing in Jesus as God and have now come to the point where I not only believe that Jesus was God, but also believe He intended for a universal church that would distribute the Eucharist, which I believe to be the supernatural manna of the New Testament. I have read countless scholars and arguments regarding various levels of the faith, and that long journey has led me to a place where I am firm in my faith, which happens to be the Catholic faith. I even read atheistic former evangelicals like Bart Ehrman, whose works I found ironically pushing me toward the Catholic Church as well.

For starters, let me begin by saying that I believe in everything in the Nicene Creed…but one primary issue, which is attached to numerous other issues as well, has kept me from going to Church, from finally being confirmed, and from truly accepting the Catholic Church.

I call this problem my “filler issue,” because it directly relates to all of the Church stances made to “fill in” what Jesus did not directly address. For instance, on the issue of birth control, Jesus never directly addresses this (for obvious reasons) and nowhere can it be implied or seen that a married couple cannot use birth control or that sex should only be to create children and not as an expression of love between two married people. This is only ONE example, but there are many, many, many issues. Women being allowed to be priests is yet another. Confession is one as well. Nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus suggest the Church’s role is to engage in these activities. I know confessional powers was given directly to the apostles AFTER the resurrection, but it doesn’t say priests 2,000 years later should have the same power. The Catholic Church has addressed these issues and insists many of them are inferred from the actions of Jesus, but I have trouble buying that argument. I guess in the end, my primary issue is accepting the Catholic Church’s role as creating NEW doctrine. I know why I should trust the Church’s stances on the issues relating directly to Jesus and the Old Testament, but I cannot bring myself to accept Church doctrine that was created by the Church alone, and I often wonder if the Church should be creating new doctrine or simply defending the doctrines handed down to them by Jesus and developing those further. I am NOT saying that Church does not have the authority to further develop ideas passed down by Jesus…the Trinity is an example of Church doctrine developed by the Church BASED on the teachings of Jesus. But contraception in married relationships doesn’t fit anywhere in that model because it’s not even based on what Jesus taught, and the Church’s position on women being priests makes little sense to me as well.

I believe Jesus established the Catholic Church, but with what mission? To create new doctrine as well as defend and develop original New Testament teachings? I am not so sure. I don’t know that Jesus ever intended for his Church to truly be making decisions only God could make. This is at the heart of my problem. I don’t know if I can be apart of the Catholic community truly because I don’t know if I can ever accept the Church’s role of creating new doctrine and then treating it as though it came directly from Jesus. Clearly the Church has made many mistakes in the past so not every decision it makes is what Jesus wants. If anyone can help me with this problem, I would greatly, greatly appreciate it. God bless.

The Church’s mission is to know and proclaim the faith. People can-and do-argue with her all day long. But as Scripture, itself, tells us, the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. If you can believe Scripture, you have no less reason to believe her, and, unlike Scripture, the Church can speak for herself, explaining her teachings where necessary. Scripture, by itself, cannot do so, which is why there exist so many various interpretations of it. And Scripture certainly can’t teach the unwritten traditions, of course.

 

[MinkPink]

Isn’t it in Genesis that we are told to multiply and fill the earth? That would nix birth control. Women priests? If Jesus wanted women to be priests then He would have had some female apostles. What new doctrine has the Church made that doesn’t have its foundations in the Bible? Can you cite some and maybe we can find out where they originated from?

These are things I struggle with as well.

But using that citation in Genesis, that would mean that squandering any chance to add to the human population whether it’s through NFP, becoming a celibate priest or nun, or not using your every waking moment as possible to populate the earth would be tantamount to disobeying God.

As regards women apostles what were Lazarus’ sisters? Or Mary Magdalene? Think of all the encounters Jesus had with women in the Bible whom he healed or ministered to. It seems unlikely that they did not become followers of Jesus, even if they didn’t make the 12 Disciples cut.

 

[adrift]

Church.

I know confessional powers was given directly to the apostles AFTER the resurrection, but it doesn’t say priests 2,000 years later should have the same power.

So Jesus gave the power only to the Apostles just to disappear after they died and leaving everyone else without the benefit of being forgiven of their sins? It doesn’t make sense that it would only be for the time of the Apostles.

I believe Jesus established the Catholic Church, but with what mission? To create new doctrine as well as defend and develop original New Testament teachings? I am not so sure. I don’t know that Jesus ever intended for his Church to truly be making decisions only God could make.

There is no new doctrine.

19 I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

 

[adrift]

As regards women apostles what were Lazarus’ sisters? Or Mary Magdalene? Think of all the encounters Jesus had with women in the Bible whom he healed or ministered to. It seems unlikely that they did not become followers of Jesus, even if they didn’t make the 12 Disciples cut.

Lazarus sister’s were friends. Lazarus wasn’t an apostle. There are only 12 apostles and none were women. Yes Disciples none were priest.

 

[Nate13]

For instance, on the issue of birth control, Jesus never directly addresses this (for obvious reasons) and nowhere can it be implied or seen that a married couple cannot use birth control or that sex should only be to create children and not as an expression of love between two married people.

Actually it can. The basis of the Theology of Body rests on the idea in Gen 2:24 and then repeated by Jesus in Mark 10:8 in an address on divorce. It also revolves around Eph 5:25-33. Its about recognizing the fullness of what becoming “one flesh” really means and loving our spouses as Christ loves the Church. For other Biblical evidence on the birth control pill you can look to Gal 5:20, Rev 9:21, and Rev 21:8. These three verses condemn what is called “pharamakeia” in Greek which some believe is in reference to contraception and abortion.

When you look at the words of some early Church fathers it seems very likely this is the case. “Pharmakeia” is often translated as “sorcery” but they sure as heck were not talking about black cats and witches because that didn’t exist then. Its very likely sorcery was in reference to contraceptives and abortifiacients.

Caesarius of Arles
“Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in hell. If a woman does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman” (Sermons 1:12 [A.D. 522]).

“Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before birth? What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with His laws? Yet such turpitude. The matter still seems indifferent to many men—even to many men having wives. In this indifference of the married men there is greater evil filth; for then poisons are prepared, not against the womb of a prostitute, but against your injured wife. Against her are these innumerable tricks.”

John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans 24, A.D. 391

You also have cases that show God considers making people infertile to be a curse in Hosea 9:11 and Jer. 18:21. This would at least call out causing permanent sterility as being wrong would it not?

You also have Augustine who says this:

"You [Manicheans] make your auditors adulterers of their wives when they take care lest the women with whom they copulate conceive. They are unwilling to have children, on whose account alone marriages are made. How is it, then, that you are not those prohibiting marriage, as the apostle predicted of you so long ago [1 Tim. 4:1-4], when you try to take from marriage what marriage is? When this is taken away, husbands are shameful lovers, wives are harlots, bridal chambers are brothels, fathers-in-law are pimps.”
Augustine, Against Faustus, 15:7, A.D. 400

In reference to this from the Bible:

1 Timothy 4:1-4

1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

This is only ONE example, but there are many, many, many issues. Women being allowed to be priests is yet another.

Think of it like this. God has ordained women to be the ones biologically that produce children. Men are not any less diminished in purpose, even though they are not capable of doing this. Men and women each serve different roles biologically that are complementary in achieving the biological purposes God intended.

Now lets consider the priesthood which is a calling of a supernatural nature. This calling has little to do with the biological differences between men and women. God made this apparent in Exodus talking to Moses:

10 Moses said to the LORD, “Pardon your servant, Lord. I have never been eloquent, neither in the past nor since you have spoken to your servant. I am slow of speech and tongue.”

11 The LORD said to him, “Who gave human beings their mouths? Who makes them deaf or mute? Who gives them sight or makes them blind? Is it not I, the LORD? 12 Now go; I will help you speak and will teach you what to say.”

Moses was not a public speaker, but God did not care about this in regards to who he chose to call to do his will. Thus we can be certain women are not withheld from being priests because of biological reasons. But this should not surprise us since the priesthood is a supernatural calling. Its not based on biological abilities. God has decreed that men should be priests for the same reasons he chose to became human in the guise of a man. This is a spiritual imperative for men in the same way childbirth is a biological imperative for women.

Questioning his judgement on this matter is like questioning why women are the only ones you get to carry, give birth, and breastfeed children. Many men are envious of the relationship women are able to have with their children because of this. The fullness of a relationship that a mother has with her child is just something many men will never be able to have with their children at a young age because of the biological differences.

 

[Mintaka]

Re: “Be fruitful and multiply” means that if you’re not having sex every moment, it’s a sin.

Jesus told Peter to “Kill and eat” (in his vision telling him it’s okay to eat non-kosher animals). This didn’t mean, “Run wild with a cleaver, and stuff your face until you die of a burst-open belly.” It meant, “You can slaughter and eat non-kosher animals.”

God commands us to serve Him and follow His commands. But He is the Word – Logos, which also means Order and Reason. You’re not supposed to follow God like a crazy person; you’re supposed to balance His commands with each other.

You and your spouse are allowed not to have sex when you have a good reason, just like you’re allowed to have sex when you have a good reason. (“We’re married and we want to have sex” is a perfectly good reason.) You’re just not allowed to try to have sex all the time, while at the same time reacting with horror and revulsion to the babymaking functions of sex.

And obviously people do find lovemaking by calendar a romantic idea, or you wouldn’t have all these ads and TV shows and romance novels promoting sex at Christmas, sex on St. Valentine’s Day, sex on Saturday night, etc.

If the greeting card industry and the jewelry industry were constantly promoting men giving stuff according to their wife’s cycle of infertile and fertile times, everybody would think it was the ultimate personalization of romance.

 

[Trishie]

You are concerned about what is not in Scripture, but there are two scriptures that back up the authority for the pope to make binding rules, inspired by the Holy Spirit

Jesus said:
12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.” John 16

Earlier. in Matthew 16, Jesus gave the right to His apostles to make laws:
St Peter who was to be first leader of the Church had said,
“You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that **you are Peter,and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.**

 

[empther]

Jesus did not write a book. It he thought it was necessary he would have certainly did so.
Apparently he left it to the Church to teach specific matters.

What if Jesus had written or said artificial implantation of human embryos was wrong!
How about embryonic stem cell research?
The pill?
Nobody would have known what he was talking about.
Apparently he left it to the Church to teach these matters.

 

[pepipop]

This may be of interest to you, regarding Pope Paul VI’s prophecy in the '60’s, in relation to contraception. Whilst taking the contraceptive pill or using a condom in itself, is not hurting anyone ( if the moral viewpoint is left aside), look at the effect it has had on western civilisation over the past 40 years.

businessinsider.com/time-to-admit-it-the-church-has-always-been-right-on-birth-control-2012-2#ixzz1lzBzUSMl

The Church teaches that love, marriage, sex, and procreation are all things that belong together. That’s it. But it’s pretty important. And though the Church has been teaching this for 2,000 years, it’s probably never been as salient as today.

Today’s injunctions against birth control were re-affirmed in a 1968 document by Pope Paul VI called Humanae Vitae. He warned of four results if the widespread use of contraceptives was accepted

1. General lowering of moral standards
2. A rise in infidelity, and illegitimacy
3. The reduction of women to objects used to satisfy men.
4. Government coercion in reproductive matters.

Does that sound familiar?
Because it sure sounds like what’s been happening for the past 40 years.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I believe Jesus established the Catholic Church, but with what mission? To create new doctrine as well as defend and develop original New Testament teachings? I am not so sure. I don’t know that Jesus ever intended for his Church to truly be making decisions only God could make. This is at the heart of my problem. I don’t know if I can be apart of the Catholic community truly because I don’t know if I can ever accept the Church’s role of creating new doctrine and then treating it as though it came directly from Jesus. Clearly the Church has made many mistakes in the past so not every decision it makes is what Jesus wants. If anyone can help me with this problem, I would greatly, greatly appreciate it. God bless.

I would offer a few reflections that I think directly answer your concerns. If they are too abstract, let me know.

(1) The word of God given to the church (the deposit of faith) is so much more than can be consciously adverted to at any one time. In time, in the life, prayer, worship, and thought of the whole church (not just the Magisterium), these infinite riches are probed and understood more deeply, inferences are drawn, what is implicit becomes explicit often in the face of heretical denials.

(2) The CC understands God’s word to be handed by Scripture and Tradition in the Church. This is taught and portrayed in Scripture and the early church. The Fathers, Ecumenical Councils, and the liturgies are historical witnesses to the existing life and belief of the church. They don’t invent it, although they may formulate it.

(3) Attempting to derive the content of God’s word, divine revelation, from the results of one’s interpretation of the Bible alone here in 2012 produces the artifact of Catholic teachings appearing to be added to God’s word. What ever differs from the results of my interpretation of the Bible alone has been added. This is at bottom the “filler issue.”

(4) It might help to reflect on the issue of the explicit formulation of truth from what is implicit.
Truths–revealed ones included–have consequences. If God has revealed truths to us whom He knows can draw valid consequences, He has revealed the consequences to us as well. If they are valid consequences from revealed truths, they are by definition also true and revealed. As an analogy, all of Euclid’s theorems are implicitly contained in his 5 postulates. Yet none of them shows up as worded in the postulates; and his theorems took time to derive.

So:

•Is there an expiration date on when valid theorems can be drawn from Euclid’s postulates?

•Is there, similarly, an expiration date on when valid and true consequences can be drawn from the word of God, the deposit of faith?

•If something is truly implicitly contained in the deposit of faith, how early does it have to be given formulation, i.e., made explicit, for you to consider it to have been revealed?

•Can one put a time table on when, how, and under what contingent circumstances of history a valid and true consequence of the deposit of faith will be drawn and made explicit?

 

[pepipop]

Similarly, in Africa, the CC, in theory, ‘could’ have changed their stance on contraception, as the devices would have been used as a ‘protective’ measure against the aids epidemic, not child briths, esp. so in lieu of the public and media’s scornful onslaught as to the 'CC’s position, but needless to say they were proved right again, see below.

I think it’s a question of looking at the bigger picture.

guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/07/catholic-church-condoms-africa

Those countries that have chosen to popularise use of the condom – like many nations in southern Africa – are now fast changing policies. Those countries that have given emphasis to late start of sexual activity, abstention and faithfulness in relationships have seen a dramatic fall in the rate of new cases.

“Condoms can protect Africans from Aids,” Tanya claims. Perhaps, but what I do know is that the only way to stop HIV/Aids is to ask people to lead responsible sex lives. Offering the condom as a panacea does the opposite. Perhaps this simple fact is lost on people who have never set foot in Africa, but parading the miracles of the condom simply invites people, especially the young, to be careless with their sexuality and so become prime targets of the HIV virus. The exact same as is happened to the western world since the 1960’s - anything goes.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/harvard_researcher_agrees_with_pope_on_condoms_in_africa/

but several prominent scientists dedicated to preventing AIDS are defending the Pope, saying he was correct in his analysis. In an interview with CNA, Dr. Edward Green explained that although condoms should work, in theory, they may be “exacerbating the problem” in Africa.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I am surprised that the church recommends NPF. To me that is just another form of birth control. We are birth controlling ourselves out of a civilization here and every place else.

If Onan had tried to use NFP and TOTALLY refuse to have children, he would be guilty for preventing the promise of the Messiah (Promised to the tribe Of Judah, Onan’s father). Your surprise, however, means you need to pray for guidance and true study; there is a dangerous hole in your understanding.

NFP can be abused; but you seem to equate NFP WITH abuse, which is embarassing.
Why do you see no difference?

There is nothing wrong with choosing the time and place to attempt to have children, but it is wrong to disobey God in fulfilling the promise of giving his son a bride, the church, throughout all ages; who is spotless, humble, considerate, faithful, and virtuous. If you don’t understand why, I’d hazard to say that you might want to look first carefully at what can be observed in the study (sciences) of human psychology when compared with what has been recoreded in scripture. The surprises you’ll find there will compliment this first surprise of yours.

The meaning of being man and woman in sexuality is limited to this creation; Jesus has told us that procreation is not part of his plan for us in the consummation of Life.
Those who do not have children in Spiritual cooperation with God will eventually discover that they have chosen to give either themselves or their children over to those who hate God maliciously.

That is what the meditation on 1) death, 2) judgment, 3) Heaven and 4) Hell is about.

Only the Truth sets a person Free – but Truth does not enable them to do anything they want without consequences; (St. Paul demonstrates the point with an Axe.).

Even the divine mercy promises, should they come to pass in any give case, have consequences for those who beg for them in addition to those whom the mercy is granted to. Freedom is not totalitarian nor divorced from reason.

In hell (the 4th thing) a person can BEGIN to meditate on what it means that God the Father has promised to his son that EVERY knee shall bend at the name of his son; even the tiniest JOT of his son’s command will be obeyed by the devils in hell as surely as the saints in heaven. Not even St. Faustina’s saying can change this Truth, and “my Word”, of the Father.

He will rule all of creation as King, regardless of how perverted the subject’s reasoning is.

As he promised to his 12 apostles; each of them will rule on thrones (angel seats) at his side.

Even Satan has a place in being ruled; I would suggest you spend some time meditating on the meaning of the four last things, which follow on the ruling of the three.
It might be helpful to you.

 

[jinc1019]

First of all, I want to thank EVERYONE for posting and providing their insights, guidance, and support. I am really taken back by the number of responses and do not have time to address all of them individually, but I would like to thank everyone for their time and efforts and faith. I am reading every single post thoroughly and carefully.

There are a few key comments that keep emerging, however, and I want to address them because I think it is important to clarify what my orginal point was.

First, this isn’t really about contraception for married couples, or confession, or married priests, or female priests, or any other specific issue. I know it seems that way from my original post to many of you, but that isn’t the real issue. The real issue is that the Church has to make specific stances on issues that are not directly addressed by Jesus or the Bible. Contraception is one of those issues. Because they are not directly addressed by Jesus, the Church must make a decision and my issue rests here. I can recognize happily everything the Church decides when it is directly related to the tradition of Jesus, but I cannot simply accept the Church’s position on issues not addressed by Jesus unless I can accept the Church’s authority as decision-maker in this capacity. At the heart of my problem is the authority of the Church to be Christ on earth, and many of you have helped with your guidance on this issue.

However, something I am still having a difficulty dealing with is the idea that the Church is still made of men and women, and all men and women make mistakes. Even if the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church, men can ignore the Holy Spirit and go in their own direction. On many of these issues, it seems nearly impossible for me to accept Church authority when it is ultimately men making decisions. At that point, I feel like many of these issues are up for debate and not necessarily the will of Christ. The mass used to be conducted in Latin and now it isn’t. Vatican II changed many, many things about the Church so doesn’t this mean that if the Church can change its position about something, then it can be wrong about something?

Also, I have read much of Humanea Vitae and I agree with much of it about couples not married…but still, if a man and a woman are married, why shouldn’t they be allowed to have sex while using contraception? Many of you cited the Old Testament’s command to go forth and multiply, but that command was made when the world was a different place and mulitplying was more important…Many of the Old Testament commands have been abandoned by the Church because Christians don’t need to engage in those activities anymore. Additonally, one can have children and then use contraception, is that disobeying God’s orders? Is it really better to have 10 kids if you can’t afford to give them all a good life than provide 3 children with a higher standard of living? I don’t know and my point is not to make an argument for or against contraception, only to point out that this teaching FEELS and LOOKS like something the Church has made, not something Jesus has made. I know the Church must make difficult decisions and stances, but shouldn’t they differentiate between the Church doctrine that is absolute, such as teaching that Jesus is God and teachings like no one should use contraception? Are messages directly from Jesus really the same as Church doctrine created after Jesus? Mayber the Church does make this separation and I just don’t know about it, but the issue I just illustrated is really the heart of my problem.

 

[jinc1019]

jinc1019,

I’m sure that you are going to get a lot of good advice, in fact it has already started.

Now I have not read any of the replies but wish to offer just a couple of fundamental points for you to consider.

I see that you are in law school… so I can assume that you like the law and are training your mind to think within the logic of the legal system I actually think that this is a good place to begin.
Let’s consider the Gospels to be like the Declaration of independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We might also include the federalist papers in there as sort of like the Epistles - ECF’s…
The point is that there are two components to these items. The actual written word and the principles behind those words. There are many things in law today that the constitution did not specifically cover and the Founding fathers never heard of and so never considered. Yet - contained in our countries founding documents are the principles that we try to use as we move forward.
Likewise the Church - as it relates to Scripture and ECF’s - does the same thing. The Church must, as a matter of course, deal with things that were not directly addressed in the written Scriptures and may or may not have been addressed or alluded to in the writings of the ECF’s. Yet the faithful need guidance and Christ provided for that in His Church and he told us how to relate to His Church here:
Matthew 18: 15-18
15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church let him be as a tax collector. 18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.
So, when issues come up, we are to “Tell it to the Church” and we are to “Listen to the Church”.

Now - One of the absolute core’s of our founding principles is “Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”. This is found in the rock basic founding document, the declaration of Independence. In the Church, in the Gospel and from Christ’s own mouth we likewise have an absolute core principle upon which everything else is built. You will find it here:
Mt 22:36-40 36
“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And He said to him, " You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' 38 "This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 "The second is like it, Your shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 “On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”

So the Church, in trying to address issues that have come up, (…tell it to the church…) She does her best to investigate, review and found her teachings on Love and the historical teachings and positions of the Church - Just as the Supreme court, in deciding some issue will look deeply into past law, principles etc before rendering a judgement.
Then, one the Church has prayerfully come to an understanding - a teaching - she promulgates that teaching so that we, the faithful, may know and understand the teaching (…Listen to the Church…)
Of course this might, and often does, lead to other questions and other investigations and more writings and clarifications etc. on the subject. Again, not unlike how things operate in the Law and courts of the US.

As you move forward in your faith journey, do seek to keep this in front of you. That all true things of God are based on Love. It will help you tremendously…It has me…

Peace
James

James, I wanted to direct you directly because your post was spot on and an excellent help. I really do appreciate the time you took to present your case and the passages you selected from the Bible, especially the ones about taking your issues to the Church, was very helpful.

Again though, is Jesus saying here that the Church will always have the right solution or just that they are the most trustworthy guide or maybe He is saying the Church is just more likely to be right…Is there any Biblical reason to believe the Church is ALWAYS right about these issues that are not directly on point in the Bible?

 

[jinc1019]

Hey,

I realize that contraception is not your only issue, but I think it’s worth addressing briefly as an example of how these sort of issues are handled.

First, contraception is (sort of, or as close as was possible at the time) addressed in scripture a little bit in Genesis 38:

I believe somewhere there is a passage speaking on sterilization as well. You can read more about this here: catholic.com/tracts/contraception-and-sterilization.

Things like opposition to contraception may seem weird at first glance, but everything is really tied together nicely. It starts from the fact that men and women are actually different (though equal in dignity, of course), but complementary to each other, and continues through the fact that sex is supposed to be a completely unselfish act of giving between the spouses that both acts as a physical sign of their joining into one flesh through marriage and remains open to new life, ending up with the conclusion that since contraception messes with this (potentially removing the “selfless” part as in the case of Onan and always remaining closed to one of the two essential purposes of the act), it is not allowed. This sort of thing is not just the Church saying “this vaguely reminds me of something Jesus said, so lets do it.”

(Also, it is not true that the Church thinks “that sex should only be to create children and not as an expression of love between two married people,” but that neither aspect should be separated from the other.)

Confession is also directly addressed in the bible - “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained” said to the apostles, binding and loosing, etc.

To address the issue of “filler” directly, Jesus founded a Church led by apostles. He did not write a book. His Church wrote the book later - under the guidance of God, yes, but that guidance was given to the Church to determine what was scripture rather than God dropping a book down from the heavens.

What I’m trying to say is that as awesome as the bible is, it was never meant to contain the entirety of the faith, and even says so repeatedly. There are many issues Jesus did not address. Cloning, for example - it wouldn’t have made much sense for Christ to say “Oh, by the way, in a couple thousand years, some of your descendants will learn how to make other people in little glass-like jars, make sure to warn them not too.” Who knows what other moral issues will arise in the future, from new technology or what have you? While the Earth could end tomorrow, it could also go on for another billion years or more, so a conclusive guide to every issue that could ever come up that could be understood by people centuries before the issues would arise would be a bit of a waste of time

But the issues will come up. And they will have to be dealt with. And they must be dealt with according to God’s will. So rather than codifying absolutely everything that could ever need to be known into one volume and delivering it to us, He gave us the basics, some of the details, and a Church that is entrusted with coming up with the rest.

In essence, coming up with solutions to “filler issues” is what the Church is for.

Excellent point about the Church…I agree this is the role of the Church, BUT does that automatically mean the Church is always right about these issues? Can they never be wrong on contraception or female priests or anything else?

 

[jinc1019]

The question is: Do I seek understanding to believe, or do I believe and then seek understanding. Do I seek to understand the Trinity to believe it, or do I believe in the trinity and then seek’ some understanding.

Some will say, “I need to understand it first, because I can’t believe in something I don’t
fathom.” But that isn’t faith. Faith is believing in truth that it sometimes beyond our mind.
We aren’t capable of understanding or explaining everything.

This is exactly why Jesus left the church to guide us. The biggest question is: How much do I really trust Jesus’ church. Did he leave this on earth to help me know his “way” or should I start my own church because I think his church is erroneous.

You or I or anyone else will always have a problem accepting some truths. None of us will ever feel it is right in that or this or whatever. The reason is because we make mistakes and go in the wrong direction. He left his shepherd to lead us. Because you or I or whoever will never have all the right answers or figure it all out.

What was JESUS ALWAYS praising people for? Their faith in him.

Just say,“Lord, I believe, and if it is your will, help my understanding.”

Just of thought.

Even if what you say is true, you first have to accept that the Church is never wrong about anything, including issues that come up later on…Does that mean the Church can never change its mind on a issue? Of course It can.

 

[Safia]

Even if what you say is true, you first have to accept that the Church is never wrong about anything, including issues that come up later on…Does that mean the Church can never change its mind on a issue? Of course It can.

One thing that I think you’re missing, my friend, is that Christ Himself promised that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into Truth – which means that, in terms of questions of faith and morals, doctrine regarding new items – i.e., contraception – is guaranteed to be True. It is impossible for the bishops and the Pope to go wrong on these issues. The Church is infallible. And, thus, no, the Church will never change its stance on issues of Truth. You hear, the Church should really catch up on questions of abortion and homosexuality – but the Church will never “catch up,” because these teachings are never based on the time or the culture, but are based on God’s, and thus the Church’s, understanding of humanity, dignity, sexuality, etc. Those, like God Himself, are never-changing.

I’ll pray for you, brother. In my reversion, oddly enough, these were the teachings most easy for me to buy into – modern contraception is a development of the time, and the Church has to defend what has always been. You should read JPII’s analysis of Genesis at the beginning of Theology of the Body, if you haven’t already.

God bless.

 

[Safia]

James, I wanted to direct you directly because your post was spot on and an excellent help. I really do appreciate the time you took to present your case and the passages you selected from the Bible, especially the ones about taking your issues to the Church, was very helpful.

Again though, is Jesus saying here that the Church will always have the right solution or just that they are the most trustworthy guide or maybe He is saying the Church is just more likely to be right…Is there any Biblical reason to believe the Church is ALWAYS right about these issues that are not directly on point in the Bible?

We have proof of always. Read this.

 

[adrift]

Even if what you say is true, you first have to accept that the Church is never wrong about anything, including issues that come up later on…Does that mean the Church can never change its mind on a issue? Of course It can.

The first thing is you must define is Church. The Church can never teach an untrue dogma. When it comes to Faith and Morals the Church is never wrong.

 

[jinc1019]

This may be of interest to you, regarding Pope Paul VI’s prophecy in the '60’s, in relation to contraception. Whilst taking the contraceptive pill or using a condom in itself, is not hurting anyone ( if the moral viewpoint is left aside), look at the effect it has had on western civilisation over the past 40 years.

businessinsider.com/time-to-admit-it-the-church-has-always-been-right-on-birth-control-2012-2#ixzz1lzBzUSMl

The Church teaches that love, marriage, sex, and procreation are all things that belong together. That’s it. But it’s pretty important. And though the Church has been teaching this for 2,000 years, it’s probably never been as salient as today.

Today’s injunctions against birth control were re-affirmed in a 1968 document by Pope Paul VI called Humanae Vitae. He warned of four results if the widespread use of contraceptives was accepted

1. General lowering of moral standards
2. A rise in infidelity, and illegitimacy
3. The reduction of women to objects used to satisfy men.
4. Government coercion in reproductive matters.

Does that sound familiar?
Because it sure sounds like what’s been happening for the past 40 years.

I agree and have seen that prediction, but those things are a result of non-married couples having sex, especially younger people in poverty, not married couples.