G
godisgood77
Guest
No, it’s not dangerous. It’s part of the Church magisterium.
Is "Amoris Laetitia" as dangerous to Church teaching as some claim?
- Status
G
godisgood77
Guest
Correct, nothing unrealistic about using NFP as birth control
N
njmah16
Guest
We? You are Catholic? With your disdain for church teachings, I would have no idea.
R
Rau
Guest
It’s only purpose is to exercise some control over births - actually, over conception. It can help you achieve or avoid. Am I missing your point?
Last edited:
G
godisgood77
Guest
I don’t think your missing my point…
NFP is a natural method of birth control…Both artificial birth control and natural birth control betray a contraceptive mentality. I’m simply pointing out the hypocrisy of endorsing one method and condemning the other method. Both seek to have engage in the marital embrace, but avoid the procreative aspect of the act.
J
jking1962
Guest
Benedict XVI July 2005: “The pope is not an oracle; he is infallible [only] in very rare situations.” Benedict reinforced the point when he published his book “Jesus of Nazareth,” actually inviting people to disagree with him.”
“When the First Vatican Council formally declared the dogma of papal infallibility in 1870, it was very carefully circumscribed. According to the council’s formula, a papal edict is regarded as incapable of error only if: It pertains to faith and morals It does not contradict scripture or divine revelation It’s intended to be held by the whole Church.
The Magisterium’s job is to clear up confusion not create it. I think a lot of people have a wrong idea of what is the Magisterium.
Vatican II was criticized for being ambiguous. The Holy Scriptures in themselves can be very ambiguous and in need of an interpreter which is the Magisterium. In it’s defense the Bible is very old and the original audience had information to tie it together that we do not. V2 documents on the other hand in my opinion were sloppy and enabled what we have today. If you don’t see it then there is no arguing with you. Trent documents on the other hand were very concise and left no wiggle room.
Amoris Laetitia goes beyond ambiguous and suggests exceptions to an intrinsic evil. Intrinsic evil means no exceptions.
Some well known apologists which I will not mention are on record for supporting this theory of exceptions. The problem with their argument is that they apply conditions that do not apply. One such apologist used fear to disqualify the “Deliberate Consent” condition and reduce the whole sin to venial. Technically an objective sin can be venial such as an alcoholic falling off the wagon or someone getting drunk by accident. You should never assume your action is less than the objective and go to confession and let God be the judge. The problem with giving the green light to a Divorced and Civilly Remarried person is that the very sin is being premeditated before it happens through “discernment”.
Jesus was very clear on this issue. Magisterial teaching is always in line with Tradition.
The Pope is not an oracle. He is a sinner… I’ll bet that will ruffle some feathers.
“When the First Vatican Council formally declared the dogma of papal infallibility in 1870, it was very carefully circumscribed. According to the council’s formula, a papal edict is regarded as incapable of error only if: It pertains to faith and morals It does not contradict scripture or divine revelation It’s intended to be held by the whole Church.
The Magisterium’s job is to clear up confusion not create it. I think a lot of people have a wrong idea of what is the Magisterium.
Vatican II was criticized for being ambiguous. The Holy Scriptures in themselves can be very ambiguous and in need of an interpreter which is the Magisterium. In it’s defense the Bible is very old and the original audience had information to tie it together that we do not. V2 documents on the other hand in my opinion were sloppy and enabled what we have today. If you don’t see it then there is no arguing with you. Trent documents on the other hand were very concise and left no wiggle room.
Amoris Laetitia goes beyond ambiguous and suggests exceptions to an intrinsic evil. Intrinsic evil means no exceptions.
Some well known apologists which I will not mention are on record for supporting this theory of exceptions. The problem with their argument is that they apply conditions that do not apply. One such apologist used fear to disqualify the “Deliberate Consent” condition and reduce the whole sin to venial. Technically an objective sin can be venial such as an alcoholic falling off the wagon or someone getting drunk by accident. You should never assume your action is less than the objective and go to confession and let God be the judge. The problem with giving the green light to a Divorced and Civilly Remarried person is that the very sin is being premeditated before it happens through “discernment”.
Jesus was very clear on this issue. Magisterial teaching is always in line with Tradition.
The Pope is not an oracle. He is a sinner… I’ll bet that will ruffle some feathers.
G
graciew
Guest
The Pope himself adviced not to talk about / refer to/ exceptions.
That was long ago,and perhaps you want to google it.
I do not…but I remember that very clearly.He said it.
Want to bet? ( I do not drink but some refreshment will do)
I can always loose,no worries…
Last edited:
J
jking1962
Guest
Can you restate and clarify? Your point that is…
R
Rau
Guest
Oh, now I understand you…
The church requires that whenever one engages in sexual relations the act must be marital, unitive and procreative. NFP does not eliminate or diminish the procreative aspect of the sexual act - it eliminates the entirety of the sexual act at certain times. That, in itself, it not sinful; it is not contrary to any Church teaching.
You misunderstand the focus of what the Church teaches. It does not teach against the “birth control”, hence its acceptance of NFP is not hypocritical. It teaches against those means which corrupt the act by separating its components.
The Church teaches there is no inherent moral wrong in seeking to avoid pregnancy - in fact, responsible parenthood (see the Catechism on this point) may in fact require it. It’s OK to not have sex for 2 years if the couple agree for good reason. It’s OK to have sex while not desiring a child to conceive. It’s also OK to have sex when to the best of your knowledge, the woman is not able to conceive , though the church also teaches that adopting such as a systematic process requires one to have proper reasons.
Do you part company with the Church on some aspect of the above, which it teaches?
Last edited:
G
graciew
Guest
Just that,JKing. …
What I wrote.
E
ErraticFaith
Guest
I feel as if, as per usual, what jas is trying to convey; is the lack of ‘reality’ in abstinence appealing to the masses.
Naturally it doesn’t. And yes maybe it isn’t supposed to. I don’t necessarily share his views that it isn’t realistic but In prior conversation he has agreed infact that Chastity and value in sex IS a noble thing. So there isn’t the big lack of Concorde here that some may assume.
In basic terms;
A man meets a woman. The more his attraction to her is genuine - the more difficult his animal nature and emotions find it to resist intimacy with her. That’s perfectly natural and reasonable.
People also don’t live in a vacuum. They want their partner to stay with them and not leave them for what secular society calls ‘needs’ (sexual) somewhere else. That is real life for millions of people.
This places understandable pressure on the man because he truly loves her. And wants to convey that.
Now I know there are a thousand discussion points at this junction. Let’s not bother with them - many are valid and indeed endless in scope!
The simple truth, is not everyone is a theologian or sage. They have real human emotions, simple (busy) lives and that was the people most important to reach with the truth.
Not those who are already almost at monastery levels of devotion and piety.
So in a sense; he is only trying to offer a realistic account of how people will view the stance from the outside and recoil from the church - further bolstering the ranks of atheism.
I understood him well. And I’m sure you all did too.
Sex, should be a part of a committed relationship. I wholeheartedly do NOT believe in meaningless sex, abortion and a whole host of things that trivialise it. On that front I agree with people like Plantinga and even Ben Shapiro.
But I do feel that true love, when you are in the arms of someone who truly shares that - is going to fall into sex. That’s just a gut, human feeling and it happens naturally. A truth of life and experience that’s all. Many, if they are honest - have been there.
I don’t believe that the general layperson should avoid it. I think they should embrace it. Love your partner with all your heart. Just do so wisely and not at the forfeit of consideration to pregnancy/love and otherwise.
Lest you forget; the people of the past had poor contraception methods and a different world. They had good reason to not mess with pregnancy on any level. We can control it, pregnancy, to a point where I believe there is no possible just cause of abortion anymore. There is no need (aside from emergency) to be in that position. We can reasonably prevent it. So much so in the thousands of women I have known not a single person has got pregnant without their intention/ or knowledge. Even those who came to regret it (bad on their part indeed), knew the risk.
Sex is intimacy that should be respected. But to deny it, will see almost the whole earth shun the church or do it behind closed doors. Hopefully you can see some truth in that. Even if you, individually, are brave enough to do otherwise. Chastising people for expressing Love - will always be an impossible sell.
Naturally it doesn’t. And yes maybe it isn’t supposed to. I don’t necessarily share his views that it isn’t realistic but In prior conversation he has agreed infact that Chastity and value in sex IS a noble thing. So there isn’t the big lack of Concorde here that some may assume.
In basic terms;
A man meets a woman. The more his attraction to her is genuine - the more difficult his animal nature and emotions find it to resist intimacy with her. That’s perfectly natural and reasonable.
People also don’t live in a vacuum. They want their partner to stay with them and not leave them for what secular society calls ‘needs’ (sexual) somewhere else. That is real life for millions of people.
This places understandable pressure on the man because he truly loves her. And wants to convey that.
Now I know there are a thousand discussion points at this junction. Let’s not bother with them - many are valid and indeed endless in scope!
The simple truth, is not everyone is a theologian or sage. They have real human emotions, simple (busy) lives and that was the people most important to reach with the truth.
Not those who are already almost at monastery levels of devotion and piety.
So in a sense; he is only trying to offer a realistic account of how people will view the stance from the outside and recoil from the church - further bolstering the ranks of atheism.
I understood him well. And I’m sure you all did too.
Sex, should be a part of a committed relationship. I wholeheartedly do NOT believe in meaningless sex, abortion and a whole host of things that trivialise it. On that front I agree with people like Plantinga and even Ben Shapiro.
But I do feel that true love, when you are in the arms of someone who truly shares that - is going to fall into sex. That’s just a gut, human feeling and it happens naturally. A truth of life and experience that’s all. Many, if they are honest - have been there.
I don’t believe that the general layperson should avoid it. I think they should embrace it. Love your partner with all your heart. Just do so wisely and not at the forfeit of consideration to pregnancy/love and otherwise.
Lest you forget; the people of the past had poor contraception methods and a different world. They had good reason to not mess with pregnancy on any level. We can control it, pregnancy, to a point where I believe there is no possible just cause of abortion anymore. There is no need (aside from emergency) to be in that position. We can reasonably prevent it. So much so in the thousands of women I have known not a single person has got pregnant without their intention/ or knowledge. Even those who came to regret it (bad on their part indeed), knew the risk.
Sex is intimacy that should be respected. But to deny it, will see almost the whole earth shun the church or do it behind closed doors. Hopefully you can see some truth in that. Even if you, individually, are brave enough to do otherwise. Chastising people for expressing Love - will always be an impossible sell.
Last edited:
R
rcwitness
Guest
I have my doubts about the orthodoxy of AL. But i dont claim to be the authority.
In the end, i have lost so much trust in priests applying true Teaching to the faithful. AL wants to provide more trust in priests judging an unknown line between right and wrong. I dont trust all annulment judgments, or spiritual guidance from priests. Ive been advised to use condoms, and practice mutual masturbation by priests. Both are suppose to be absolutely prohibited for the purpose of contraception.
In the end, i have lost so much trust in priests applying true Teaching to the faithful. AL wants to provide more trust in priests judging an unknown line between right and wrong. I dont trust all annulment judgments, or spiritual guidance from priests. Ive been advised to use condoms, and practice mutual masturbation by priests. Both are suppose to be absolutely prohibited for the purpose of contraception.
E
ErraticFaith
Guest
Priests are told to deal with the most realistic outcome. That the person will continue to engage in whatever activity and knowing that; they still have an obligation to do what’s right by informing you about how best to protect yourself in whatever choices you make.
So in essence priests aren’t trying to contradict themselves or scripture. They are just putting their love of you before their love of doctrine.
I can see how that might unsettle some but to me? I believe they are just.
Nothing is more important than Life and God’s creation. We are to love God and each other (and our safety) before all things. I struggle to see how the priests are acting wrongly.
So in essence priests aren’t trying to contradict themselves or scripture. They are just putting their love of you before their love of doctrine.
I can see how that might unsettle some but to me? I believe they are just.
Nothing is more important than Life and God’s creation. We are to love God and each other (and our safety) before all things. I struggle to see how the priests are acting wrongly.
S
simspt
Guest
Why hasn’t the pope clarified to those who are unclear of his teaching on the subject? As successor of St. Peter isn’t that his obligation to Shepard his flock…
M
Maximilian75
Guest
these matters ought to be brought to the attention of a bishop…
R
Rau
Guest
In the first case, the tribunal exercises a discretion - to form a judgement based on the evidence - and we assume it does so properly.
In the second case, the priests concerned chose to act contrary to teaching. They had no such discretion.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Contraceptions and sterilization remove, or block the life giving component of sex. This is wrong and comes from sin, not faith.
NFP regulates the natural cycle of the body to avoid fertile times. It is not opposed to Gods law.
NFP regulates the natural cycle of the body to avoid fertile times. It is not opposed to Gods law.
R
rcwitness
Guest
You are right. And a tribunal can err… so i dont trust all decisions. Some are evident, without the need to judge intentions. But you are also right that information and evidence can be wrong.
R
rcwitness
Guest
So Pope Francis is introducing the notion that discretion can be applied to couples in adulterous relationships, for fallible priests to discern.
To me, that notion requires support from Tradition and Scripture, especially when the last two popes taught that specific situations dont make exceptions.
To me, that notion requires support from Tradition and Scripture, especially when the last two popes taught that specific situations dont make exceptions.
Last edited:
- Status