V
vsedriver
Guest
well our decisions often put us between a rock and a hard place. When you marry according to the Catholic Church you are saying you will welcome children whenever you engage in the marital embrace.
- Status
B
Bookcat
Guest
Oh I am not suggesting that there is not such thing as a latae sententiae excommunicaton…but the 1907 Encylopedia is out of date that was the first point and the second is that there are very defined aspects as to who and when and for what one can be latae sententiae excommunicated…catholic.com/search/content/%20latae%20sententiae (strong medicine)
Now are we as Catholics to Profess the Catholic Faith? Yes of course. I am not suggesting that one can pick or choose what to believe (not that your suggesting I am). It is just that excommunication is a very precise thing.
V
vsedriver
Guest
We lived decently on one salary. No one missed a meal or lacked for clothes. Oh sure, we didn’t have big fancy vacations or new cars. We rented for 10 years and then bought a really old house. Yeah we would have been better off if I had continued to work but I didn’t want to miss one day of my children’s growing up.
It paid off big time. And the funny thing is, when I did look for a full time job so I could help pay for college I walked into a really good one and it isn’t anywhere close to what I went to school for.
But I stand by my statement. That people should finish school first, work, then consider marriage. In the old days a man wouldn’t dream of asking a woman to marry him if he couldn’t proved a home for his wife and children.
People today have little patience and want everything NOW.
G
Gabriel_Serafin
Guest
Don’t be silly. NFP, the Creighton method charts the natural cycle of the body which allows one to p(name removed by moderator)oint the 3 days every month that a woman is fertile. No contraptions, no abortions, no trashing the seed, no sin.
Condoms trap semen, which is what Scripture refers to as “Seed”. It was Onan who spilled his seed on the ground so as to not father a child and he greatly offended God. Condoms are disposed of in the trash. Next time you’re in a stadium full of people ponder that each and every person there is a result of one single unique sperm reaching the egg in their mother’s womb. So yes, condoms trap semen and rots them in the trash.
I think the Church explains it very well. If you cannot understand the difference between abstaining from sex in order to not have a child, and having sex while destroying the man’s sperm then you’re being blinded by something.
I have no idea who you are or what you do, all I know is that you are trying to compare NFP with using condoms. Trying to compare NFP with using condoms is like comparing the act of fasting from food, with gorging yourself until you’ve had your fill and then regurgitating the food because you don’t want to gain weight. Abstaining from eating is much different than throwing up what you eat. One is not natural, the other is very sinful.
Now I know you haven’t done your research. I have urged in earlier posts to listen to the entire talk by Prof. Janet E Smith who has done exhaustive research on the matter. With the dawn of artificial contraception an new paradigm set in which created a new dynamic. All of a sudden people could have sex without the consequence of a pregnancy. That opened the floodgates to premarital, casual and promiscuous sex. Again, I urge you to listen to the talk here it is again:
PART 1
PART 2
The facts are undeniable… Of course if you don’t want to believe it, no evidence will suffice. Atheists do just as much in the face of mountains of evidence. I happen to think that not wanting to believe and trust in the Church’s teaching on this matter is a recipe for a loss of faith. If you can’t trust Church teaching then you can’t trust the Bible, since God gave us the Bible through His Church…
Again, trying to compare NFP with using condoms is like comparing the act of fasting from food with gorging yourself until you’ve had your fill and then regurgitating the food you ate because you don’t want to gain weight. Abstaining from eating is much different than throwing up what you eat. One is not natural, the other is very sinful…
H
Holly3278
Guest
Yes, using contraception or even a condom or other barrier device is a mortal sin. It does not matter if you are in a valid Catholic marriage or if you are single and fornicating, it is still a mortal sin. If you are fornicating and contracepting, you are committing two mortal sins.
A
Abu
Guest
Gabriel Serafin, excellent post again, #237.
It is one thing to be so disoriented that one is unable to reason from cause to effect. It is quite another to refuse to assent to an infallible doctrine. That is dissent. Where has assent been proclaimed?
Real Catholics dutifully assent to ALL dogmas and doctrines and if they have a problem with reasons they humbly acknowledge that fact – theologians may have difficulties and even they are mandated to follow this course.
*Donum Veritatis *completely rules out all dissent even for theologians, much less the laity:
#36. “The freedom of the act of faith cannot justify a right to dissent.”
#37 has this caution:
“Moreover, the theologian who is not disposed to think with the Church (“sentire cum Ecclesia”) contradicts the commitment he freely and knowingly accepted to teach in the name of the Church.”
#38: “The right conscience of the Catholic theologian presumes not only faith in the Word of God whose riches he must explore, but also love for the Church from whom he receives his mission, and respect for her divinely assisted Magisterium. Setting up a supreme Magisterium of conscience in opposition to the Magisterium of the Church means adopting a principle of free examination incompatible with the economy of Revelation and its transmission in the Church and thus also with a correct understanding of theology and the role of the theologian. The propositions of faith are not the product of mere individual research and free criticism of the Word of God but constitute an ecclesial heritage. If there occur a separation from the Bishops who watch over and keep the apostolic tradition alive, it is the bond with Christ which is irreparably compromised(38).
(38) Cf. Paul VI, Apost. Exhort. Paterna cum benevolentia, n. 4: AAS 67 (1975)15.
In “Vatican II’s Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes) #50-51:
“In questions of birth regulation, the sons of the Church, faithful to these principles, are forbidden to use methods disapproved of by the teaching authority of the Church in its interpretation of the divine law. 14”
And to what does note 14 refer?
To Pope Pius XI’s Encyclical Casti Connubii, 1930, which teaches infallibly (#56) that “any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”
The refusal to assent to infallible doctrine and the demeaning of the Magisterium, promotes confusion and tends to lead astray others who are looking for guidance on vital truths on a Catholic DB.
Here is the demeaning again of Christ’s Magisterium – the attack on the reasonableness of infallible teaching against contraception and no attempt made to even accept his error and repent, in claiming this doctrine is “not infallibly declared”, and then blissfully further confusing an infallible doctrine with a dogma – “as dogma” (post #156).
It is one thing to be so disoriented that one is unable to reason from cause to effect. It is quite another to refuse to assent to an infallible doctrine. That is dissent. Where has assent been proclaimed?
Real Catholics dutifully assent to ALL dogmas and doctrines and if they have a problem with reasons they humbly acknowledge that fact – theologians may have difficulties and even they are mandated to follow this course.
*Donum Veritatis *completely rules out all dissent even for theologians, much less the laity:
#36. “The freedom of the act of faith cannot justify a right to dissent.”
#37 has this caution:
“Moreover, the theologian who is not disposed to think with the Church (“sentire cum Ecclesia”) contradicts the commitment he freely and knowingly accepted to teach in the name of the Church.”
#38: “The right conscience of the Catholic theologian presumes not only faith in the Word of God whose riches he must explore, but also love for the Church from whom he receives his mission, and respect for her divinely assisted Magisterium. Setting up a supreme Magisterium of conscience in opposition to the Magisterium of the Church means adopting a principle of free examination incompatible with the economy of Revelation and its transmission in the Church and thus also with a correct understanding of theology and the role of the theologian. The propositions of faith are not the product of mere individual research and free criticism of the Word of God but constitute an ecclesial heritage. If there occur a separation from the Bishops who watch over and keep the apostolic tradition alive, it is the bond with Christ which is irreparably compromised(38).
(38) Cf. Paul VI, Apost. Exhort. Paterna cum benevolentia, n. 4: AAS 67 (1975)15.
In “Vatican II’s Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes) #50-51:
“In questions of birth regulation, the sons of the Church, faithful to these principles, are forbidden to use methods disapproved of by the teaching authority of the Church in its interpretation of the divine law. 14”
And to what does note 14 refer?
To Pope Pius XI’s Encyclical Casti Connubii, 1930, which teaches infallibly (#56) that “any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”
The refusal to assent to infallible doctrine and the demeaning of the Magisterium, promotes confusion and tends to lead astray others who are looking for guidance on vital truths on a Catholic DB.
G
Gabriel_Serafin
Guest
I meant to say…One IS natural, using condoms is sinful.
J
John21652
Guest
Indeed. No argument at all with you.
I only pointed to the old encyclopedia because of the actual definition of * latae sententiae*. In the 1983 version of the Canon law, one has to hunt all over the place to find how it applies. Latae sententiae is excommunication because of the act alone and unless it is done publicly, the only parties to the excommunication are God and the delinquent. It is rare that latae sententiae would apply to anything that wasn’t redressable, or, in other words, to much other than misdemenours and in that sense is a suspension. It is strict for abortion:“Can. 1398 A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.” On matters of dogma which evoke heresy, defined at *Can. *751 as “obstinate denial”, or “obstinate doubt” it can be argued that it would also be a strict application as stated at Canon 1364:
Your knowledge, work and expertise at providing wonderful sources is greatly admired.
G
GraceDK
Guest
This is not fruitful.Actually Deborah, Abu is totally right.
Once one dissents in action from an infallably taught doctrine, one is excommunicated ******“Latæ Sententiæ” ******which means by the act itself. It is incurred as soon as the offence is committed and by reason of the offence itself (eo ipso) without intervention of any ecclestiastical judge. Read about it in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Thus a dissenter’s title as “Catholic” is probably even too geneous.
Contrary to Blacksword’s opinion, the thinking is not “faulty” at all. It is based upon extremely tight philophical and theological reasoning.
Look! Debora has given some clues to her situation. She is a believing Catholic going through a time of temptation. She has been married for one year and tells us that after that one year she and her husband started acting sinful because NFP is difficult.
Since then she has been trying to rationalize her behaviour… but I also think one part of her is just venting frustration. I truly believe she knows that in rebellion there is no peace, and if she trusts in the Church in other things, and she defines herself as Catholic , its important to her… she just needs some time to get through this phase and become obedient again. I have no doubt that she will become obedient. She loves Christ and the Catholic Church too much. Some times people just get tired of struggling so they let go and indulge in some useless things for a while, until they find out that inmoderacy leads into nothing…
And if there is truly a real difference in oppinion. If Debora has no conscience-pains at all when sinning, then she has a right to follow her conscience.
As a person who has converted from the lutheran belief system to the catholic one, I know the step is big… but when a person is logical and consequent in action, her convictions must be followed, even if that means Debora will become a Protestant. This would not be a bad thing provided conscience and reason quides the decision. Honesty to one self and God must always be primary.
However, she must first be given peace to figure out what she really believes… what is passion, what are wrong motives, what is faith, what is cool reasoning in all this.
Talking about excommunication is not a good idea… I mean. What you say makes it sound like most of us have at some time been excommunicated without ever knowing it…
B
Barbra67
Guest
Yes, it is a mortal sin. It is against GOD’s will.
**Gn:38:8:
8 Juda, therefore, said to Onan his son: Go in to thy brother’s wife and marry her, that thou mayst raise seed to thy brother.
Gn:38:9:
9 He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother’s wife, he spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother’s name.
Gn:38:10:
10 And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing: **
**Gn:38:8:
8 Juda, therefore, said to Onan his son: Go in to thy brother’s wife and marry her, that thou mayst raise seed to thy brother.
Gn:38:9:
9 He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother’s wife, he spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother’s name.
Gn:38:10:
10 And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing: **
A
Abu
Guest
What a travesty for anyone who is a Catholic!
The missing truth is that conscience has to be formed correctly, otherwise it is an erroneous conscience.
Pope John Paul II in *Veritatis Splendor *#64: “The Church puts herself always and only at the service of conscience, helping it to avoid being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine proposed by human deceit (cf. Eph 4:14), and helping it not to swerve from the truth about the good of man, but rather, especially in more difficult questions, to attain the truth with certainty and to abide in it.”
“The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.” (CCC1783).
CCC1792 identifies “errors of judgment” precisely: “…assertion of a mistaken autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and Her teaching…”
Vatican II:
“In the formation of their consciences, the Christian faithful ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church. For the Catholic Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of the truth. It is her duty to give utterance to, and authoritatively to teach, that truth which is Christ Himself, and also to declare and confirm by Her authority those principles of the moral order which have their origins in human nature itself. Furthermore, let Christians walk in wisdom in the face of those outside, ‘in the Holy Spirit, in unaffected love, in the word of truth’ (2 Cor. 6:6-7), and let them be about their task of spreading the light of life with all confidence(36) and apostolic courage, even to the shedding of their blood.” (Vatican II, Dignitatis Humanae, 14).
J
John21652
Guest
Grace, can we be clear on something. I wasn’t directing anything at Deborah, other than to point out that Abu was posting correctly and he in turn was posting in response to someone else!
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Debora,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Trust all is well.
To delay having a family on the grounds of slender means, whilst sounding superficially plausible to worldly reasoning, is really nothing more than worldly pragmatism, dear sister. This may be a very fashionable trend in our present irrelgious culture, but it is diametrically opposed to the whole spirit of Catholicism. Now if there were no God; if there were no hope of any future life and if one were not a professing Christian, one might very well be tempted to be swayed by such secular reasoning, as on the face of it, at least, it appears perfectly sensible and practical argumentation. It admits of no doubt that financial deficiency does necessarily entail poverty, I myself no much of that as did our dear Lord Himself. Notwithstanding, my dear sister, is not the opportunity of attaining eternal salvation and felicity, worth any privations in this transient life?
It may be said, by way of reply, that if one is confronted with the choice of bringing undernourished and disadvantaged children into the world for whom one cannot presently provide, or resorting in the short term to contraception, then surely contraception is the lesser of the two evils. On the contrary, to bring children into the world and not be able to provide for them is easily the lesser of the two evils. This may run counter to the worldly and materialistic mindset of the spirit of the age in which our lot is sadly cast, but is, nonetheless, thinking with an authentic Catholic mind. Better any temporal trials than commit mortal sin by breaking God’s law. In any event, you have no certainty that you and your husband will be unable to provide for any children that God’s blesses you with, prior to you finishing your college education. There is such a thing as the Divine Providence, especially to those who are faithful to Him and His laws, even if plain common sense dicatates otherwise. Forgive me if I come across as rather censorious or uncharitable, dear sister, but I am keenly aware of how very easy it is nowadays for even good young Catholic people to assimilate the godless worldly thinking of our times.
Incidently, God has a special providence for large families. At best, I respectfully suggest that you are making a conjecture, based on your anxiety about not having sufficient funds at the moment to support even one children, which may never be realized. Moreover, if I have understood correctly, you at least toy with the idea of violating a certain obligation on pragmatic grounds, based upon possible contingencies - contingencies, which, even if they did eventuate, could never excuse such a violation of the law of God and the Church.
The other alternative in your situation is, of course, self-denial and abstaining from conjugal relations until you have completed college. Mutual self-restraint, whilst involving discomfort, is lawful for Catholics, as you know. However, if people do choose to use their marital privileges, they must accept that God absolutely forbids any form of birth prevention. Please understand, dear sister, I do fully appreciate that the libido in youth is extremely intense and that abstinence requires very special grace, but nothing is impossible with God and if the marriage is strong in other areas, then it can be done, as many can no doubt testify.
Finally, we must have faith to believe that the good Lord will not send a mouth He cannot fill. Even if it meant poverty; even if foster parent’s had to take care of me, I would prefer to be born and have my chance of eternal happiness with God. In any event, I would seriously question that parents cannot normally support the children which will result from their marriage, provided God’s laws are duly observed. Just remember, a great many of men’s trials are those which never happen! True, having even one child can mean difficulty, self-sacrifice and earnest service of God. However, as a general rule, such difficulties are confined to the early stages of married life, when the vigour of youth is most able to bear them.
God bless and I proffer my sincere apologies in advance, dear sister, if I have in any way offended you or misunderstood your present situation etc.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
P
PumpkinSeed
Guest
In catholic view, any type of contraception is a sin.
F
fix
Guest
The marital act is not changed in any way. How has fertility been suppressed?
There are taken to help space children, that is not the issue. Again, the marital act is not altered in anyway.
F
fix
Guest
The man and woman come together as designed and ordained by God. That is objective. Through no fault of their own they may be infertile. That is subjective.
It is not about likelihood on conception. No one is bound to try and conceive during every single contact.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Setting aside any particular person and the other aspects of the discussion there.
I would not put it quite that way. They have an obligation to correct the error.
An important quote for all of us -especially during our Lenten journey of deeper conversion:
“We must free ourselves from the hidden lies with which we deceive ourselves. God sees through them, and when we come before God, we too are forced to recognize them. “But who can discern his errors? Clear me from hidden faults” prays the Psalmist (Ps 19:12 [18:13]). Failure to recognize my guilt, the illusion of my innocence, does not justify me and does not save me, because I am culpable for the numbness of my conscience and my incapacity to recognize the evil in me for what it is.”
–Pope Benedict XVI Encyclical Letter: Spe Salvi
I also will add that we all need to read this: vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20090628_chius-anno-paolino_en.html (the second paragraph begins what I am meaning here)
B
Blacksword
Guest
Which boils down to argument from authority again. Which, as I’ve said and am to post again shortly, is the best, non-inconsistent or disingenous argument that can be made ont the issue. “The Pope says God ordained it to be this way and ONLY this way”. But thanks for explaining what you meant.
B
Blacksword
Guest
This discussion really isn’t fruitful anymore at this point. It’s clear to me from posts like this one that in pointing out the logical inconsistencies in this teaching I’ve basically excommunicated myself according to you, and I and all my loved ones are bound for eternal hellfire. Thanks for the judgment by the way. I will be bowing out of this thread after this post since it’s really going no where except thoroughly depressing and discouraging me.
First, I’m not being “silly”, but rational. The fundamental problem I think is that in discussing NFP, you are employing clever word games by crafting self-serving, largely ad hoc definitions of terms so as to make your case. You define NFP fundamentally as “not doing something” i.e. having sex, but this is only half of the equation, and we all know it. If it were just “not having sex” it wouldn’t be NFP, but rather “total abstinence”. This is an example of the word games being used regarding NFP in argumentation on the topic. NFP is NOT “not doing something”, it’s precisely determining when TO DO SOMETHING (i.e. have sex)! It is a program designed to determine when to act on sexual impulses and when not to, so using analogies that compare it ONLY to not doing something is intellectually dishonest and invalid argumentation. And again, the other actions that must be taken in utilizing NFP “in anticipation of the marital act” are absolutely unusual, exacting, and highly involved. To use the poor analogy made earlier; you wouldn’t be going to such extremes to “check the weather” if you didn’t have a contraceptive intent! You’d just head outside when you wished, as it were, and take what comes.
I’m well aware of Genesis 38:9, as well as what the Scriptures refer to semen as, thanks! And I’m also well aware of how reproductive biology works…a pity that St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and others (whom I do happen to admire greatly despite their human FLAWS, btw!) did not know these things, their opinions on such matters may well have differed if they did.
And here again, when you talk about “trashing the seed” you conveniently ignore the fact that if one has engaged in sexual relations with one’s spouse purposefully during a time one KNOWS their spouse is infertile, one is also “wasting the seed” every bit as much. If, for instance, a wife provides completion to her husband orally, her mouth is, frankly, every bit as fertile as her womb is at this time, meaning not at all. Even completing the act “the old fashioned way” still wastes the seed in this respect, as is fully INTENDED by the parties, as it will be lost outside the wife’s body on the bedsheets or in the toilet all the same, and otherwise die. The point is; it doesn’t take much imagination and rational inquiry to poke some rather obvious holes in all of the attempts at formal argument put forward on this subject. As I said before, really the only argument that can be cogently put forward that doesn’t amount to assuming the consequent, ad hoc rationalization, or other inconsistencies is one from authority: the unitive and procreative ends of sex cannot EVER be separated or served one without the other, and this is so because the Church says so. That’s it really. And I would point out here that, for any husbands out there who have ever had the misfortune of being relegated in the bedroom to “walking sperm donor” when the wife wishes to have another baby (you know, the “I’m ovulating now so just do it and get it over with” kind of unloving, dispassionate sex-for-procreation only intercourse that is all too common when the wife has baby-making on her mind) this should be equally denounced by the Church as evil, destroying the unitive purpose of sex. And yet I have seen no encyclicals declaring spouses must bring passion to the bedroom as best they can on pain of mortal sin. If one end of sex can NEVER be served in any single act without the serving of the other though, this would be equally sinful.
B
Blacksword
Guest
continued.
I’ve struggled intellectually with this teaching and still do. I’ve been told numerous times by priests that in my situation what I have discerned in my faith walk is acceptable and permissible, and that I need not fear of mortal sin for my actions in my bedroom with my wife. And no, just to pre-emptively respond to posters suspicions on this front, we do not use condoms and NEVER have, nor has my wife ever been on the pill. I’m going to trust the direction of my confessor and priest, and my own prayerful discernment and seeking over the word of anonymous laypersons on the internet who are, I am guessing, not theologians, do not speak for the Church, and who basically provide huge experts of cut and paste quotes from encyclicals, papal interviews, and other NON-infallible sources and then declare me excommunicated without even knowing anything about me.
It’s not just abstaining from sex, as I’ve said already, and we all know it. NFP is both abstaining and partaking, more analogous in your example of eating to fasting and binge eating than to just fasting. So no, I’m not blinded, I’m rational and objective.
I’ve struggled intellectually with this teaching and still do. I’ve been told numerous times by priests that in my situation what I have discerned in my faith walk is acceptable and permissible, and that I need not fear of mortal sin for my actions in my bedroom with my wife. And no, just to pre-emptively respond to posters suspicions on this front, we do not use condoms and NEVER have, nor has my wife ever been on the pill. I’m going to trust the direction of my confessor and priest, and my own prayerful discernment and seeking over the word of anonymous laypersons on the internet who are, I am guessing, not theologians, do not speak for the Church, and who basically provide huge experts of cut and paste quotes from encyclicals, papal interviews, and other NON-infallible sources and then declare me excommunicated without even knowing anything about me.
Lastly, it’s great that Janet Smith has done “exhaustive research” on the matter, but it seems most actual researchers in sexual health, marital and family therapy, and related disciplines are not finding these connections. For my own education on this matter however, since I will freely admit to ignorance as to Professor Smith’s work, what peer-reviewed academic journals has her research been published in? Can you provide me some links to published journal articles by her in academic journals? If so, I will check the thread later for your links and gladly read them. I will note though that there is anecdotal data that would seem to contradict the proposition of an inherent connection between contraception and divorce, crime, or the other ills you wrote about. For instance, the divorce rate is lowest in the U.S. among northeastern states such as Massachusetts, liberal bastions of heathenism that they are, as well as rates of infidelity, sexually transmitted diseases, and so forth, yet contraception usage is highest in these same areas of the country. By contrast, the contraceptive rate is lowest in southern, bible-belt states, where divorce, STD transmission, teenage sex, and so forth are highest. Please point me the way to Professor Smith’s academic research though and I’ll read.
- Status