I'm very liberal, considering Catholicism.

[gardenswithkids]

This is an interesting perspective. Does anyone have another take on it? Are contraception and abortion really on the same level in Catholicism? Can someone show me why…I don’t fully understand the teachings of venial vs mortal sin, and all the categories given to sin, so if someone could explain what contraception and abortion fall under I’d really like to know.

There are two catagories of sin: mortal and venial. All sins offend God, but mortal sins are the serious sins. Beyond those two catagories, I don’t think there is any formal “ranking” of the level of evil of all mortal sins, although some of us believe that it’s worse to murder. As Kage-ar posted above, both abortion and contraception are regarded as mortal sins.

Even if a sin is objectively regarded as a mortal sin, as Kage also posted the person commiting the sin needs to know the seriousness of the sin and commit with full consent of the will for that person to be in a state of mortal sin. Many using contraception do so in ignorance that it is even a sin at all, whatless a mortal sin. God is the only One Who truly knows our hearts, and He’s the only One Who can judge the state of a persons’ soul.

I think the Church teachings against contraception are some of the most difficult Catholic teachings to understand in our day and age. It probably deserves its own thread to do any justice of addressing the issue, but I hope this helped a little.

 

[JDaniel]

I think that JD’s post touches very importantly on the danger of hierarchizing sins. When talking about contraception to non-Catholics – and especially in relation to policy in Africa – I’ve found this to be a temptation that comes up often. People will make the interesting point, “Well, if an AIDS-stricken African man is going to sleep around anyway, shouldn’t he at least use a condom when he comes home to his wife?” The problem when we begin hierarchizing sins is that it begins to seem like an either/or scenario, when in reality what the Church teaches is far more truthful: don’t sleep around, AND don’t use a condom.

Often I will then hear in response, “Well, but the temptation to sleep around is a lot stronger than the temptation to use a condom. He might sleep around despite the Church’s teachings because his lust clouds his judgment, but then suddenly decide that he is too Catholic to use a condom when he gets in the bedroom with his wife. So if the Church is only relevant in the marriage bed, shouldn’t it teach the socially responsible thing to do – condom use?”

Of course, this strategy (willfully or not!) marginalizes the Church in considering it a lost cause that it won’t be heeded outside the marriage bed, and it marginalizes the man in giving up on the strength of his will. But even if there are cases like the example describes, the Church’s job is not to be practical, but to teach the truth. If this man wants to ruin his life by selectively choosing from among the Church’s teachings, that’s his business. But the Church would have no authority whatsoever if it started saying, “Well, this sin (contraception) is less serious than this other sin (abortion, promiscuity, etc),” since it would begin to relativize what is absolute. Additionally, in such a situation as this, the Church – in assuming that we are reasonable creatures capable of doing good – holds forth a lot more hope for mankind and human souls than do those who are willing to write promiscuity off in an effort to reduce certain AIDS statistics.

THAT SAID…while your post, JD, also makes a very good point about our openness to life mirroring God’s openness to creation, I am personally not convinced that’s a strong theological foundation on which to make the case that contraception is even more fundamental a sin than abortion. I think that goes a bit far, and also, it threatens to make us pretty bad Catholic apologists, too: if thinking contraception is as bad as abortion leads us into thinking the reasons against contraception are as obvious to non-believers (and believers) as the reasons against abortion, or into forgetting that the physical and psychological damage done by abortion is obviously a lot greater than that done by contraception (speaking about the temporal plane here), then I don’t think we will be very effective at speaking to people’s confusion (about contraception), being open to their pain (in regards to abortion), and avoiding doctrinal pedantry / closed-mindedness in general…

Thoughts? Wonderful discussion so far, I enjoy it!
+AMDG+

tuviskazinai:

As a really smart guy recently said, “hear, hear!”

Merry Christmas and
God bless,
JD

 

[apromisemade]

The rate of abortion in “developed nations” is almost twice as high (50 abortions per 100 births, compared to 29 abortions per 100 births) as “developing nations.”

Europe has contraception available, Africa doesn’t. Which one has a lower abortion rate? The place where there are fewer legal abortions available.

I initially didn’t want to respond to this as I thought is was off topic. But since the whole contraception vs. abortion discussion seems to have gotten off the ground anyway. I will say that when one is speaking of abortion in developing nations such as, say, Ethiopia or the CAR, that begs a whole other moral question all together.

Does one save a child from abortion today just so it may die of cholera or menengitis tommorow?

 

[tuviskazinai]

tuviskazinai:

As a really smart guy recently said, “hear, hear!”

Merry Christmas and
God bless,
JD

haha…succinct-ness is not one of my strong suits, so I like that one a lot.
Merry Christmas to you, as well!

 

[Contarini]

Hi all!

This has become a stumbling block for me. Part of me is really interested in becoming Catholic because a lot of the theology makes sense, but the other part of me is terrified of conservative clergy. I’m having a very hard time differentiating what is peoples opinions and what is the actual teaching of the Church.

I read somewhere that if a Catholic votes for a politician that is not pro-life that they are automatically excommunicated. Is that how it is?

No. But many people on this forum will try to persuade you that it is.

However, the Catholic Church does teach very clearly that abortion is murder.

Edwin

 

[jmcrae]

This is an interesting perspective. Does anyone have another take on it? Are contraception and abortion really on the same level in Catholicism? Can someone show me why…I don’t fully understand the teachings of venial vs mortal sin, and all the categories given to sin, so if someone could explain what contraception and abortion fall under I’d really like to know.

Both are considered mortal sins, given that the other two conditions - full knowledge and free consent of the will - are present.

A pregnant teenager who is hauled away to an abortion clinic by her parents and/or boyfriend to “get rid of the problem” without a chance to think through the issues for herself is less culpable for sin than her sister who then goes out and buys a box of condoms so that when she has sex outside of marriage with her boyfriend, they won’t “get caught”.

Both are guilty of sex outside of marriage, but the sister compounds the sin by adding condoms to the mix. The first girl commits no sin, because she has no consent of the will with regard to the abortion. (The parents and/or the boyfriend, however, are guilty of material cooperation in an abortion, and have committed a mortal sin of their own.)

The problem here is not sex - sex is a good thing. The problem is also not pregnancy - God teaches us in the Scriptures that pregnancy is a blessing from God.

The problem is that sex is seen as a recreational activity on the same level as drinking or going to a party, that, if you get caught, your parents will get mad - which turns pregnancy into a “punishment” or a “problem” (instead of the blessing that God wants it to be) which needs a “solution” - either contraceptives, or abortion.

Both of these are intended to “solve” the “problem” of God’s blessing on the woman. That’s why both are considered to be sinful, and why the solution, as the Church sees it, is to reserve sex for marriage, and to remind married people that every sex act is to be open to the possibility of life - that, if a pregnancy really would be a bad idea, that abstinence from sex for a period of time is indicated, until the situation is resolved.

 

[apromisemade]

The problem is that sex is seen as a recreational activity on the same level as drinking or going to a party, that, if you get caught, your parents will get mad - which turns pregnancy into a “punishment” or a “problem” (instead of the blessing that God wants it to be) which needs a “solution” - either contraceptives, or abortion.

Forgive me, but this is something I really take issue with. It seems to me that the Church tries to lump sex into two categories. The impression I’m getting is that, in the eyes of the Church, any sexual intercourse at all is for…

A) Purely casual, carnal, self-serving gratification, or…

B) The specific intention of making babies.

It seems to me like there is no room in there for a way of expressing your genuine love and affection for someone and connecting with them on a deeper level.

Or am I missing something

 

[kage_ar]

Forgive me, but this is something I really take issue with. It seems to me that the Church tries to lump sex into two categories. The impression I’m getting is that, in the eyes of the Church, any sexual intercourse at all is for…

A) Purely casual, carnal, self-serving gratification, or…

B) The specific intention of making babies.

It seems to me like there is no room in there for a way of expressing your genuine love and affection for someone and connecting with them on a deeper level.

Or am I missing something

God designed sexual intercourse to take place inside of a valid marriage and it is for two reasons - bonding and babies.

 

[jmcrae]

Forgive me, but this is something I really take issue with. It seems to me that the Church tries to lump sex into two categories. The impression I’m getting is that, in the eyes of the Church, any sexual intercourse at all is for…

A) Purely casual, carnal, self-serving gratification, or…

B) The specific intention of making babies.

It seems to me like there is no room in there for a way of expressing your genuine love and affection for someone and connecting with them on a deeper level.

Or am I missing something

Sex is certainly for connecting at a deeper level with your spouse, and you don’t have to be always seeking a pregnancy - but you have to be open to it - the attitude needs to be, I love you enough that it’s okay if this expression of our deep love for each other grows legs and starts running around on its own out there in the world, needing to be fed and to have its diaper changed, and making us laugh, cry, get angry, and pull our hair out with worry for the next 18-20 years or so.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

The problem is that sex is seen as a recreational activity on the same level as drinking or going to a party, that, if you get caught, your parents will get mad - which turns pregnancy into a “punishment” or a “problem” (instead of the blessing that God wants it to be) which needs a “solution” - either contraceptives, or abortion.

Both of these are intended to “solve” the “problem” of God’s blessing on the woman. That’s why both are considered to be sinful, and why the solution, as the Church sees it, is to reserve sex for marriage, and to remind married people that every sex act is to be open to the possibility of life - that, if a pregnancy really would be a bad idea, that abstinence from sex for a period of time is indicated, until the situation is resolved.

LOL I had to respond to this because it’s not always true! Sex, to me, was most certainly a recreational thing when I was 18, and yet the resulting pregnancy was not ONCE seen as anything other than a blessing (by me - other people thought it was a problem). I didn’t have any problem to “solve”…in fact I named my daughter a name that means “worthy of love” so that everyone would shut up about their “you should have aborted” comments.

But…I’m still in complete disagreement with the teaching that contraception is bad. It just doesn’t make sense to me. Sorry. It’s not that you’re not explainging it right, I don’t think. It’s that I don’t agree with it, and since I’m not 100% convinced of the infallibility concept I’m not buying it. Allthough, admittedly I’m a little confused here. Maybe someone can clarify this for me…

I understand that the Catholic Church teaches that contraception is sinful. But that teaching, what does it fall under? I mean, it’s not the kind of thing you find when you search for “Catholic beliefs”. As per the forum, it falls under “Moral Theology”. Who established the moral theology of the church? Theologians? The Pope? Are these infallible teachings? How is this developed and why are we supposed to accept it? Is it because we’re supposed to accept EVERYTHING the Vatican teaches? I thought only the infallible things were considered “must believes”. Is the contraception thing and infallible thing? Are the non-infallible things (opinions of the Vatican is what I would call them) things that “must” be believed as well? Can someone give me an example of something the Church teaches that we don’t HAVE to believe in order to be in good standing with God?

 

[Listener]

I would like to respond to the original post. This forum is a very conservative place, and it contains a lot of errors. The Catholic Church is made up of both Liberals and Conservatives. Back when John Kennedy was running for president, most Catholics voted democratic, but no one who voted Republican was accused of commiting a sin. It is the abortion issue that caused Catholics to start voting Republican. While it is true that a woman who obtains an abortion is automatically excommunicated, no one has ever been excommunicated for voting for a pro-choice politician, to my knowledge. I come from a blue state, and I saw a lot of Obama signs in the yards of my Catholic neighbors. Catholics are people with a whole range of different opinions about all kinds of things. Around here, no one ever mentions the Latin Mass, and they are perfectly happy with the Mass that has been said in English for the past umpteen years.

I think you should contact your local Catholic Church and enroll in the RCIA program if you want to learn more about what the Church teaches. I have known of people who went through RCIA several times without becoming Catholic. People who go to RCIA are perfectly free to go without making a commitment to becoming a Catholic. You will get a much more balanced view of the Catholic Church than you will get by hanging around these forums.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

I would like to respond to the original post. This forum is a very conservative place, and it contains a lot of errors. The Catholic Church is made up of both Liberals and Conservatives. Back when John Kennedy was running for president, most Catholics voted democratic, but no one who voted Republican was accused of commiting a sin. It is the abortion issue that caused Catholics to start voting Republican. While it is true that a woman who obtains an abortion is automatically excommunicated, no one has ever been excommunicated for voting for a pro-choice politician, to my knowledge. I come from a blue state, and I saw a lot of Obama signs in the yards of my Catholic neighbors. Catholics are people with a whole range of different opinions about all kinds of things. Around here, no one ever mentions the Latin Mass, and they are perfectly happy with the Mass that has been said in English for the past umpteen years.

I think you should contact your local Catholic Church and enroll in the RCIA program if you want to learn more about what the Church teaches. I have known of people who went through RCIA several times without becoming Catholic. People who go to RCIA are perfectly free to go without making a commitment to becoming a Catholic. You will get a much more balanced view of the Catholic Church than you will get by hanging around these forums.

Thanks for the tip. I think I’ll probably do just that. Check out RCIA and check out a few parishes in the area, and see if I can find one with a large socially liberal community. I’ve been reading and I’ve come to the same conclusion that you have. This forum is way to conservative for my liking. I agree with the Catholic Church on matters of faith more than I agree with any other denomination but that doesn’t mean that I agree with the Catholic Church 100%. Perhaps that automatically makes me Protestant, but I’m more concerned with Christian unity than I am with the idea of starting my own denomination. I believe in the resurrection of Jesus and so I do want to be a member of a Christian church. My preference is Catholic. That doesn’t change the fact that I’m a social liberal. I’m sure there’s some Catholic activist group out there that would like another dissenting member.

I can’t help it that dissenting Catholic theologians make more sense to me than social conservatives.

Anyway, I’ll come back and visit if I have any good questions. Even though I see a strong bias on this forum, I do think a lot of interesting and good things can be learned here.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

Oh…and no one said anything about my username! Come on, don’t you guys just love it?

I sat there wondering what to create and I remembered the movie Mrs. Doubtfire and how Robin Williams looked at the newspaper and combined two words on the spur of the moment (which is kinda what I did when I was asked to create a username because the one I wanted was already taken). PLUS it has the word “doubt” in it…it was perfect for me, with all my doubts. Anyway…lol…I’m all proud of my username…and it’s so sad no one commented! Okay, enough pettiness.

 

[kage_ar]

I understand that the Catholic Church teaches that contraception is sinful. But that teaching, what does it fall under? I mean, it’s not the kind of thing you find when you search for “Catholic beliefs”.

Trust only official Catholic sources, random internet searches or library ventures will give you all sorts of whacky conflicting information.

Bookmark these websites – or, purchase the actual books – and reference official Church teaching when you run across anything in your search.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (I link to this one, because it has a great search function):

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

The Vatican website is a treasure trove. www.vatican.va

Encyclicals, Aposotolic Letters, all of the official documents are there.

Some that I reference often:

The Compendium of the Catechism vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

The Compendium of Social Doctrine vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

The Code of Canon Law vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

God is Love vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html

The USCCB has many documents and helps on their website www.usccb.org

The Catholic Encyclopedia is available at www.newadvent.org

Get a good translation of the complete Bible, here are some versions for reading on line:

Douay-Rheims catholicfirst.com/bibledrv.cfm

The New American Version usccb.org/nab/bible/

The Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition RSV-CE for short geocities.com/sacra_scriptura/eng_bible_index.html

D0UBTFIRE:

As per the forum, it falls under “Moral Theology”. Who established the moral theology of the church? Theologians? The Pope? Are these infallible teachings? How is this developed and why are we supposed to accept it? Is it because we’re supposed to accept EVERYTHING the Vatican teaches? I thought only the infallible things were considered “must believes”.

The forum titles were set by the forum owners. The teaching of the Church comes from the Magusterium, we are to accept the Church doctrine and dogma in matters of Faith and Morals.

A good book to explain the development is “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Ludwig Ott. You may want to check the library on that one, it can be an expensive purchase.

Is the contraception thing and infallible thing?

Yes. Here is a very good article to help explain it ewtn.com/library/CHRIST/CONFATAL.txt

Are the non-infallible things (opinions of the Vatican is what I would call them) things that “must” be believed as well? Can someone give me an example of something the Church teaches that we don’t HAVE to believe in order to be in good standing with God?

If you go to the link above for the Catechism and type in “death penalty”, you will see that the Church officially allows capital punishment in limited circumstances. Catholics can be against the death penalty, however, those Catholics must not claim that when it is done in accordance with Church teaching that it is a sin.

Immigration is another one, where there are people of good faith in the Church who hold different beliefs, as long as one does not contradict the social teaching of the Church.

Understand that not all teaching is doctrine or dogma, some are disciplines. There are disciplines in the Church that can change over time, for instance, the fast before reception of the Eucharist. That discipline has changed for Latin Rite Catholics over the years.

 

[kage_ar]

Can someone give me an example of something the Church teaches that we don’t HAVE to believe in order to be in good standing with God?

Here is an example, the most famous private devotion… The Rosary.

While a Catholic must believe in the dogmas about Mary, a Catholic may choose not to embrace the Rosary as his or her private devotion. One could be a good Catholic and never pray a Rosary.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Oh…and no one said anything about my username! Come on, don’t you guys just love it?

I sat there wondering what to create and I remembered the movie Mrs. Doubtfire and how Robin Williams looked at the newspaper and combined two words on the spur of the moment (which is kinda what I did when I was asked to create a username because the one I wanted was already taken). PLUS it has the word “doubt” in it…it was perfect for me, with all my doubts. Anyway…lol…I’m all proud of my username…and it’s so sad no one commented! Okay, enough pettiness.

Okay, since you asked–I’ll say something about your user name.

It read your posts and responded on this thread over a day or two before I realized you were a female. I thought you were male until you wrote about getting pregnant. Now that you mention the movie… :doh2: No wonder I couldn’t easily tell your gender.

Yes, it’s a nice user name. User names are fun. I find they often help tell us a little bit about the person. You expressed your doubts.

I hope you find a nice Catholic parish that helps answer all your questions consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church. I hope you come back here sometimes too. Yes, as you noted, many members of this forum tend to run conservative, but as I wrote earlier the Catholic Church is neither conservative nor liberal.

Keep searching for answers to your doubts. God bless.

 

[jmcrae]

I understand that the Catholic Church teaches that contraception is sinful. But that teaching, what does it fall under? I mean, it’s not the kind of thing you find when you search for “Catholic beliefs”. As per the forum, it falls under “Moral Theology”. Who established the moral theology of the church?

God did, when He gave to Moses the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments are the only part of the Bible that was written directly by God, in the original.

Jesus expanded on their meaning in the Sermon on the Mount, which we find in Matthew chapters five through seven, where He shows very clearly that sex outside of marriage is a sin, including even just thinking about having sex - and that marriage is not for recreational sex, but for the foundation of a family - He teaches us that Adam and Eve are the prototype of a marriage, and when we go back into the Book of Genesis, we see that they were given only two commandments - first, to avoid eating the forbidden fruit, and second, to go forth, multiply, and subdue the earth.

Theologians? The Pope? Are these infallible teachings? How is this developed and why are we supposed to accept it? Is it because we’re supposed to accept EVERYTHING the Vatican teaches? I thought only the infallible things were considered “must believes”. Is the contraception thing and infallible thing?

Yes, but not by the declaration of a Pope, but by the witness of Scripture and the long-standing belief of the Jews long before we ever had any Popes - it is simply one of those teachings that Jesus never overturned nor replaced, other than with the concept of spiritual children for those who remain celibate - but those who remain celibate are to become spiritual mothers and fathers, rather than biological mothers and fathers.

Are the non-infallible things (opinions of the Vatican is what I would call them) things that “must” be believed as well? Can someone give me an example of something the Church teaches that we don’t HAVE to believe in order to be in good standing with God?

No, I can’t think of a single thing the Church actually teaches that you can freely contradict.

The Church has a lot of stuff that it doesn’t teach, though - for example, it neither teaches the theory of evolution, nor insists on a literal rendering of the Creation story, so we are free (within certain parameters, of course - that God is the Creator, that God called the Creation “good,” and that we have no ancestors who are not themselves also descended from Adam and Eve) to believe whatever makes sense to us about the Creation of the world.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Now, the Pope said (can’t remember the source, but I have seen it), about candidates, that one may vote for a pro-choice candidate, provided that the reason you do is not because you yourself support abortion. The US Catholic bishops took a much more conservative stance on it, but that’s it.

No, that is not true. The pope did not say that. What the pope said was that when faced with two candidates who are both pro-abortion, one may vote for a candidate based on other issues or for the one who is less pro-abortion. The USCCB echoed that.

If there is one candidate who supports abortion and one who opposes it, then Catholics CANNOT, in good conscience, vote for the pro-abortion candidate. Saying that you didn’t vote for them because of their pro-abortion views and that it was for other reasons is a cop-out because they are are trying to rationalize voting for someone who supports the destruction of innocent human life.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[estesbob]

In scanning this thread it saddens me to see how the Obama apologists arrive and twist and distort Catholic teaching in still another attempt to jusify their support of abortion.

To the OP please do not let yourself be led astray by those who want convince you that you can pick and choose what you want to beleive when you are Catholic. It is hard being catholic but the rewards are out of this world.

 

[fbl9]

No, that is not true. The pope did not say that. What the pope said was that when faced with two candidates who are both pro-abortion, one may vote for a candidate based on other issues or for the one who is less pro-abortion. The USCCB echoed that.

If there is one candidate who supports abortion and one who opposes it, then Catholics CANNOT, in good conscience, vote for the pro-abortion candidate. Saying that you didn’t vote for them because of their pro-abortion views and that it was for other reasons is a cop-out because they are are trying to rationalize voting for someone who supports the destruction of innocent human life.

In Christ,
Rand

just a side not to this .may i ask if say one is pro death and the other candidate would willing attack another country unjustly,iow was a war monger,but was against abortion?