And someday they will say the same about contraception. I have heard the impressive mental gymnastics that people use to try to ‘prove’ that the Church has not changed its teaching on things like usury and slavery, but the anyone with any knowledge of the history of the Church knows the truth.This is not dogma or doctrine…
See above.The Church has NEVER changed its binding teachings in matters of faith and morals. Disciplines and customs have changed. Doctrine, never.
Ok this is cute, but not serious.As for “Jesus never said anything about _____” argument, let me ask you this. Where did Jesus say cannibalism was wrong?
That could have happened 40 years ago — but didn’t.And someday they will say the same about contraception. I have heard the impressive mental gymnastics that people use to try to ‘prove’ that the Church has not changed its teaching on things like usury and slavery, but the anyone with any knowledge of the history of the Church knows the truth.
See above.
Ok this is cute, but not serious.
The Church will probably not change its teaching that marriage should be open to procreation, but the Church could well decide that using contraception to pace and time pregnancies is not in conflict with that. That is how the Church justifies NFP, after all.
With all due respect, we don’t know that for a fact-it may change, we just do not know.That could have happened 40 years ago — but didn’t.
Humana Vitae will not be overturned.
It hasn’t changed in 2000 years. It didn’t change 40 years ago. With many of Pope Paul’s predictions having come true re ABC…I am certain the Church will not change.With all due respect, we don’t know that for a fact-it may change, we just do not know.
Does it seem likely? No. But again-you can’t see the future. You may think your 100 percent correct about future events, but your not. 99.9-maybe, but future events? We just don’t know.
I have knowledge of history, and I can say with 100% certainty that you are incredibly ignorant of Church teaching and history. Please educate yourself.And someday they will say the same about contraception. I have heard the impressive mental gymnastics that people use to try to ‘prove’ that the Church has not changed its teaching on things like usury and slavery, but the anyone with any knowledge of the history of the Church knows the truth.
Why won’t you answer the question? Where did Jesus say that cannibalism wrong? (Hint: He doesn’t.) By your logic, then, Jesus approved, condoned, and ENCOURAGED cannibalism. Is that what you believe?Ok this is cute, but not serious.
Um, no. Being open to life means not frustrating the marital act at ANY time of a woman’s cycle. Please read Humane Vitae and educate yourself.The Church will probably not change its teaching that marriage should be open to procreation, but the Church could well decide that using contraception to pace and time pregnancies is not in conflict with that.
That is absolutely 100% incorrect. NFP is permissible because it works WITH God’s design. All contraception by it’s very nature and function works AGAINST His design. Again, please read HV and educate yourself.That is how the Church justifies NFP, after all.
Great, for your sake, I hope it works out how you want it. I really don’t care one way or the other.It hasn’t changed in 2000 years. It didn’t change 40 years ago. With many of Pope Paul’s predictions having come true re ABC…I am certain the Church will not change.
Also, NFP is more advanced now than 40 years ago. For grave /serious/just cases, why would the Church ok something until now has been illicit, when something not morally problematic works?
It doesn’t have to do with being clairvoyant…it has to do with the truth being truthful.Great, for your sake, I hope it works out how you want it. I really don’t care one way or the other.
Again though, your not 100 percent sure because you can’t see the future. You may think you are-and heck, you may be clairvoyant enough to know with iron clad certainty what is going to happen in the future. If that’s the case, please take me up on my offer and tell me what stocks to invest in. In this market, and with my 401K looking a little weak, I could use the help.
Since the Church is Christ and Christ is immutable we have metaphysical certitude that the Church’s teachings cannot change.Great, for your sake, I hope it works out how you want it. I really don’t care one way or the other.
Again though, your not 100 percent sure because you can’t see the future. You may think you are-and heck, you may be clairvoyant enough to know with iron clad certainty what is going to happen in the future. If that’s the case, please take me up on my offer and tell me what stocks to invest in. In this market, and with my 401K looking a little weak, I could use the help.
If 98% of Catholic women willfully and knowingly dissented from Church teaching on contraception then those women would have excommunicated themselves.Obviously the Church wouldn’t do this because it would expel apparently 98 percent of Catholic women, but does the Church have the ability to (like women priests) declare this as an automatic excommunication?
Something I have been thinking about
The Church has always taught that usury and slavery are evils. And helped mitigate their bad effects. As for contraception, it is like a slow poison. Have you not seen how it unbalances things? It creates the disposition to think of a child as a curse.And someday they will say the same about contraception. I have heard the impressive mental gymnastics that people use to try to ‘prove’ that the Church has not changed its teaching on things like usury and slavery, but the anyone with any knowledge of the history of the Church knows the truth.
See above.
Ok this is cute, but not serious.
The Church will probably not change its teaching that marriage should be open to procreation, but the Church could well decide that using contraception to pace and time pregnancies is not in conflict with that. That is how the Church justifies NFP, after all.
That’s how I first understood the title as well, the women are banned. I think they meant:Obviously the Church wouldn’t do this because it would expel apparently 98 percent of Catholic women, but does the Church have the ability to (like women priests) declare this as an automatic excommunication?
Something I have been thinking about
If they are the same thing…why do so many resist using NFP? Why do secular doctors get all nervous when you say , "I use NFP’I’m going to get attacked big time on this, but I think that NFP and ABC are the same thing. They are used to avoid or space children.
I have read all the Catholic teachings. I have read “Theology of the Body”.
Perhaps I should be Protestant; I don’t know. I surely do not believe that Luther or Calvin went to Hell.
Attack at free will. I know it’s coming. I usually avoid these threads for this reason and I don’t wish to offend anyone who uses NFP.
That’s your argument, calling me names? Your going to have to do better than that.I have knowledge of history, and I can say with 100% certainty that you are incredibly ignorant of Church teaching and history. Please educate yourself.
I never said that all doctrine has to come directly from a statement made by Jesus, or that the fact that Jesus was silent on something means he encouraged it, or anything similar. I merely pointed out that the Church changing a doctrine like birth control does not make Jesus a “liar”, which is what was alleged. If you insist, I’ll play along with the silly game. But first, is cannibalism explicitly banned by some doctrine of the Church? I don’t think so, if it is, please show me where it is.Why won’t you answer the question? Where did Jesus say that cannibalism wrong? (Hint: He doesn’t.) By your logic, then, Jesus approved, condoned, and ENCOURAGED cannibalism. Is that what you believe?
Again, we disagree so you simply accuse me of ignorance. I am educated, thanks for your concern.Um, no. Being open to life means not frustrating the marital act at ANY time of a woman’s cycle. Please read Humane Vitae and educate yourself.
Again, I am more than familiar with the many arguments that attempt to distinguish “natural” contraception from “artificial” contraception. That is not the point. The point is that sometimes the Church makes changes in the way its teaching applies to the lives of the faithful. That has happened in the past, and will happen in the future. Birth control could very well be one of those changes in the future.That is absolutely 100% incorrect. NFP is permissible because it works WITH God’s design. All contraception by it’s very nature and function works AGAINST His design. Again, please read HV and educate yourself.
Yes, you are making my point for me. The Church has always taught that usury and slavery are evils. At one point in Church history, the Church taught that to avoid the evil of usury no loans at interest could be made, period. Over time that teaching evolved until now the Church teaches that loans and financial arragements have to be fair - but interest is allowed. The Church’s underlying moral principle remained the same, but the application of that principle in the daily lives of Catholics changed dramatically.The Church has always taught that usury and slavery are evils. And helped mitigate their bad effects. As for contraception, it is like a slow poison. Have you not seen how it unbalances things? It creates the disposition to think of a child as a curse.
But this exact same scenario came up, when Humana Vitae was issued, and ABC was not permitted.Yes, you are making my point for me. The Church has always taught that usury and slavery are evils. At one point in Church history, the Church taught that to avoid the evil of usury no loans at interest could be made, period. Over time that teaching evolved until now the Church teaches that loans and financial arragements have to be fair - but interest is allowed. The Church’s underlying moral principle remained the same, but the application of that principle in the daily lives of Catholics changed dramatically.
Slavery is similar. Although the Church’s stance on slavery in the very early years is somewhat murky, it is clear that the Church has long taught that slavery was evil. But for long periods of the Church’s history, the Church allowed certain forms of long-term indentured servitude that were more or less indistinguishable from chattel slavery. At other times the Church allowed similar forms of involuntary servitude to be applied to non-Christians, but not Christians. Today the Church teaches that those forms of servitude are slavery and are evil, and even teaches that much less restrictive forms of involuntary servitude - such as prostitution and forced labor - are also slavery. So the underlying moral teaching is the same, but the application of that teaching to Catholics’ lives is very different.
The same thing could happen with sex and reproduction. The Church teaches that sex has two purposes, a procreative purpose and a unitive purpose. Couples must be open to both of these purposes. The Church’s current teaching is that to comply with this principle couples may use NFP to control reproduction, but may not use barrier, chemical or sterlization forms of contraception. Just as the application of the moral principles of usury and slavery shifted in the past, this application of the moral principles involved in reproduction could also shift such that the Church says that couples must be open to new life in a macro sense, but that they can use other forms of contraception (besides NFP) to space and time and plan for children, just as they are allowed to use NFP today. I am not saying this is definitely going to happen, but it seems to me that it is a distinct possibility. If it does, it will not be a cataclysmic event that shatters the Church, anymore than the other adjustments in Church teaching over the years were.
Yes, it came up 40 years ago and was seriously considered. Doesn’t the mere fact that it was given such serious consideration (the Vatican studied the question for something like six years) indicate that change is possible? If the doctrine can’t ever ever ever change for any reason, why did Paul VI need six years and a commission to arrive at his decision? Little happens quickly in the Church - which is generally a good thing. But over time things do change. I don’t know that this will be one of them, but it could be.But this exact same scenario came up, when Humana Vitae was issued, and ABC was not permitted.
The only innovation in ABC was the advent of the Pill. Condoms, diaphrams and spermicides were around.
They were not permitted, have not been permitted in 2000 years, and will not be permitted.
One thing that most forget in this argument is that Humanae Vitae did not introduce a ban on artificial contraception. Nothing could be farther from the truth. This has been the consistent teaching of the Church.Yes, it came up 40 years ago and was seriously considered. Doesn’t the mere fact that it was given such serious consideration (the Vatican studied the question for something like six years) indicate that change is possible? If the doctrine can’t ever ever ever change for any reason, why did Paul VI need six years and a commission to arrive at his decision? Little happens quickly in the Church - which is generally a good thing. But over time things do change. I don’t know that this will be one of them, but it could be.