Name one Catholic teaching that contradicts Scripture

[stanley123]

RyanL:

Stanley…you’re cheating. NFP is not a doctrine! If you take the class (which I have), you’ll see that if NFP is used as contraception for the sole purpose of avoiding pregnancy without grave reason, it is a sin.

Interesting. I thought that NFP was taught in Catholic schools and Churches and that one of the purposes of teaching it was as a way of avoiding children. Is it not true that Catholic couples are told not to use artificial contraception, but that it is not a sin to use NFP as a way to avoid having children, if, for example, they can’t afford to have any more, or the wife is weak, etc., etc., etc.?
NFP is a Catholic teaching, and the title of the thread asks for a Catholic teaching that contradicts Scripture.

 

[WBB]

RyanL:

Stanley…you’re cheating. NFP is not a doctrine! If you take the class (which I have), you’ll see that if NFP is used as contraception for the sole purpose of avoiding pregnancy without grave reason, it is a sin. I recommend Humanae Vitae as required reading.

Also, abstaining from sex within marriage is perfectly scriptural: catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0502fea2.asp

RyanL

People tend to overlook that “without grave reason” part.

 

[stanley123]

WBB:

People tend to overlook that “without grave reason” part.

Who determines what is a grave reason, the couple or the priest? And according to: Pope Pius XI, *Casti Connubii *(#’s 53-56), Dec. 31, 1930:“But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good.”

So NFP contradicts both Scripture and Casti Connubii.

 

[Eden]

Here’s another thread on the Immaculate Conception:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=58873

Oops! I just realized that RyanL beat me to it. :bowdown2:

 

[Eden]

stanley123:

Who determines what is a grave reason, the couple or the priest? And according to: Pope Pius XI, *Casti Connubii *(#’s 53-56), Dec. 31, 1930:“But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good.”

So NFP contradicts both Scripture and Casti Connubii.

Stanley123 - You gave a quote from Casti Connubii and then made your own conclusion “NFP contradicts both Scripture and Casti Connubii”. May I infer that you have come to the conclusion that contraception is against both Scripture and Casti Connubii? In the past you have been critical of the Church’s stance on birth control but now you are supporting it. (Unless of course something contradicting Scripture is not of concern to you.)

Here is an article on the NFP, contraception and the Church:

goodmorals.org/smith6.htm

Excerpt:

But must spouses have as many children as is physically possible? This has never been the teaching of the Church. Spouses are expected to be responsible about their child-bearing, to bring forth children that they can raise well. But the means used to limit family size must be moral. Methods of Natural Family Planning are very effective means and moral means for planning one’s family; for helping spouses to get pregnant when they want to have a child and for helping them to avoid having a child when it would not be responsible to have a child. NFP allows couples to respect their bodies, obey their God, and fully respect their spouses.

 

[The_Augustinian]

There was a good article in This Rock about Natural Family Planning, and whether it is truly a “heresy” of the Roman Church.

Looking at Casti Connubii myself, it seems that Pope Pius here is not addressing “virtuous continence” but frustrating the marital act itself. The example given is that of Onan, who did not practice any form of continence, but instead chose to spill his seed on the ground, for which he was justly punished.

Certainly NFP can be abused, by people who are not at all open to having children, without any just reason. But, it doesn’t involve any chemicals, any barriers, or any other technique other than coming together during the unfertile period. And even then it’s probably not a totally guaranteed thing there, either.

 

[stanley123]

Eden:

But must spouses have as many children as is physically possible? This has never been the teaching of the Church.

According to Cardinal Ottaviani, this is wrong:
“Cardinal Ottaviani spoke on the following day. ‘I am not pleased,’ he said, ‘with the statement in the text that married couples may determine the number of children they are to have. Never has this been heard of in the Church.’ He was the eleventh son in a family of twelve children, he said. ‘My father was a laborer, and the fear of having many children never entered my parents’ minds, because they trusted in providence.’” (Fr. Ralph M. Wiltgen, S.V.D., The Rhine flows into the Tiber- A History of Vatican II. Tan Books, 1985, p. 269.)

 

[stanley123]

The Augustinian:

Looking at Casti Connubii myself, it seems that Pope Pius here is not addressing “virtuous continence” …

I am not talking about virtuous continence either. I am talking about having marital relations while making a systematic effort to prevent a new life, by meticulous and organized calculations, involving charts, cycles and thermometers.
This contradicts the following Scriptural passage:
Tobias 6:17 – “The holy youth Tobias approaches his bride Sara after three days of prayer, not for fleshly lust but only for the love of posterity. Having been instructed by the Archangel Saint Rapheal that to engage in the marital act he must be moved rather for love of children than for lust. For they who in such manner receive matrimony, as to shut out God from themselves, and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding, over them the devil hath power.”
The meticulous calculations of NFP are designed so that the couple may “give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule” and may avoid having children at the same time. So NFP is against Scripture, but it has been indicated that NFP is in accordance with Catholic teaching (today but I don’t know about before 1950).

 

[WBB]

stanley123:

Who determines what is a grave reason, the couple or the priest?

Three words: Well Informed Conscience

 

[stanley123]

WBB:

Three words: Well Informed Conscience

Scripture doesn’t mention these exceptions. It just says the Archangel has instructed that you muyst be moved by a love for children and not for lust. So if you are going to make all kinds of calculations involving thermometers, charts, and cycles in order to avoid children and engage in the marital act for lust, then it looks like you are acting in a way which is not in accord with the instructions of the Archangel as given in Scripture.

 

[WBB]

stanley123:

Scripture doesn’t mention these exceptions. It just says the Archangel has instructed that you muyst be moved by a love for children and not for lust. So if you are going to make all kinds of calculations involving thermometers, charts, and cycles in order to avoid children and engage in the marital act for lust, then it looks like you are acting in a way which is not in accord with the instructions of the Archangel as given in Scripture.

You are ignoring the flip side of NFP. Some people actually use NFP in order to find the best time to conceive. Plus there is that unitive aspect of the marital act that you seem to be ignoring. I do not make a judgment as to the state of mind of another person when engaging in the marital act. Oh, and a well-informed conscience would take scripture and *Casti Connubii *along with other Papal teachings (e.g. Humanae Vitae) into consideration.

 

[stanley123]

WBB:

You are ignoring the flip side of NFP. Some people actually use NFP in order to find the best time to conceive.

The flip side of NFP is in accordance with Scripture as it is used to promote procreation.

The obverse side of NFP where it is used to avoid children is against the instructions of the Archangel, and therefore is contrary to Scripture.

WBB:

Plus there is that unitive aspect of the marital act that you seem to be ignoring.

I was ignoring it because I was only considering the question of whether or not there is a Catholic teaching which is against Scripture. The passage from Tobias was quoted to show that the teaching on NFP is against Scripture.

If you want to discuss the unitive aspect of NFP, I can say this:

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 17), Dec. 31, 1930: “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children.”

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 54), Dec. 31, 1930:

“Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”

So, up to 1950, the primary purpose of marriage was the procreation and education of children. But then later on, after Vatican II, matrimony is no longer stated to have a “primary end” — procreation — (as in canon
1013 of the 1917 Code), but to have two apparently co-equal ends: “good of the spouses” and
“procreation.” Foe example, in
canon 1055 (the very opening canon in the section of the 1983 Code
on marriage), there is a changed presentation it makes of the ends of marriage: “The matrimonial
covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of
life, is by its nature ordered to the good of the spouses and to the procreation and education of
offspring.”

So the Church has changed its teaching on this.

WBB:

Oh, and a well-informed conscience would take scripture and *Casti Connubii *

along with other Papal teachings (e.g. Humanae Vitae) into consideration.

OK, but the question asked at the beginning of the thread was whether or not there is a Catholic teaching that contradicts Scripture. I’m only giving you the passage from Scripture that contradicts the Catholic teaching.
Also, it looks like the Pope has ruled out trying to justify NFP by saying that there is a grave reason to use it:

Pope Pius XI, *Casti Connubii *(#’s 53-56), Dec. 31, 1930:“But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good.”

 

[stanley123]

The Scriptual passage from the online DouayRheims version is slightly different from what I have quoted. Tobias, chapter 6:

17 For they who in such manner receive matrimony, as to shut out God from themselves, and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding, over them the devil hath power.

22 And when the third night is past, thou shalt take the virgin with the fear of the Lord, moved rather for love of children than for lust, that in the seed of Abraham thou mayst obtain a blessing in children.

drbo.org/chapter/17006.htm

 

[WBB]

stanley123:

So the Church has changed its teaching on this.

Changed? Clarified maybe but not changed. The matrimonial covenant has always been about what is good for the husband and wife. Bearing children is good for the husband and wife. The unitive aspect of the matrimonial covenant is good for the husband and wife as well and brings about the procreative aspect and vice versa. This is the way that I understand the teachings from Vatican II that you have mentioned. Not that the unitive is equal to the procreative in the sense that one is the same as the other, but that the two aspects of the matrimonial covenant are inseparable so that this would reaffirm what Casti Connubii teaches (that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children). Since you can’t separate the two aspects then “the procreation and education of children” will always be a possibility with every marital act.

 

[stanley123]

WBB:

Changed? Clarified maybe but not changed.

Well, it looks like the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not call one end of
marriage primary and the other secondary (par. 2363), which is not the same as it was before.
2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

However, according to Saint Caesar of Arles: “AS OFTEN AS HE KNOWS HIS WIFE WITHOUT A DESIRE FOR CHILDREN…WITHOUT A DOUBT HE COMMITS SIN.” (W. A. Jurgens, The Faith of The Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2233). So, it looks like a change, because now a married couple is allowed to use thermometers, cycles, and charts to avoid children (if you have a grave reason). Anyway, I am just giving an example of a Catholic teaching which contradicts a passage from Scripture. According to the Archangel, as mentione in Scripture, if you are going to engage in the marital act, you must be moved rather for love of children than for lust. How can you be moved by the love for children, if you are making all kinds of calculations involving thermometers, charts and cycles in order to avoid children?

 

[WBB]

stanley123:

Well, it looks like the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not call one end of
marriage primary and the other secondary (par. 2363), which is not the same as it was before.
2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

However, according to Saint Caesar of Arles: “AS OFTEN AS HE KNOWS HIS WIFE WITHOUT A DESIRE FOR CHILDREN…WITHOUT A DOUBT HE COMMITS SIN.” (W. A. Jurgens, The Faith of The Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2233). So, it looks like a change, because now a married couple is allowed to use thermometers, cycles, and charts to avoid children (if you have a grave reason). Anyway, I am just giving an example of a Catholic teaching which contradicts a passage from Scripture. According to the Archangel, as mentione in Scripture, if you are going to engage in the marital act, you must be moved rather for love of children than for lust. How can you be moved by the love for children, if you are making all kinds of calculations involving thermometers, charts and cycles in order to avoid children?

I understand where you are coming from. I will need to think on it for a while.

 

[RyanL]

Stanley,

Well…you’ve been busy! I can tell from your posts that you did not read the link I provided. It really is an excellent article…I’ll post it again so you don’t have to scroll:
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0502fea2.asp

Saint Caesar of Arles: “AS OFTEN AS HE KNOWS HIS WIFE WITHOUT A DESIRE FOR CHILDREN…WITHOUT A DOUBT HE COMMITS SIN.” (W. A. Jurgens, The Faith of The Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2233)

That’s kinda’ the whole point of NFP - you remain “open” to the possibility of children. If you don’t understand this yet, you don’t understand NFP. Your local parish should be able to direct you to a class.

I am just giving an example of a Catholic teaching which contradicts a passage from Scripture.

Apparent contradiction, only. I notice you don’t quote St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:

3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. **5Do not deprive each other ****except by mutual consent ****and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. **Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control

…how unscriptural of scripture to say such a thing…abstaining from sex within marriage for a time, then coming together again, almost like a cycle…and we’re directed to pray when we abstain, kinda’ like they told me to do in NFP…

If NFP contradicts scripture for the reasons you have provided, the I assert that scripture *also *contradicts scripture. Since scripture cannot contradict itself, I postulate that you have misunderstood the teaching. No biggie…just read the link and it should clear things up!

Now, you have asserted that birth spacing is scripturally wrong, uncatagorically. Birth spacing is naturally designed into the body, and that by God. Natural methods of birth control:

1. You cannot get pregnant before puberty
2. You cannot get pregnant while pregnant
3. You cannot get pregnant after menopause
4. You cannot get pregnant shortly after giving birth (typically while breastfeeding)
5. You cannot get pregnant during menstruation
6. You cannot get pregnant while imaciated

It sure seems like birth spacing for grave reasons was God’s idea - so much so, that He built it into us. Who is it you really have a problem with, Stanley?

Prayers,
RyanL

 

[gardenswithkids]

stanley123:

I am not talking about virtuous continence either. I am talking about having marital relations while making a systematic effort to prevent a new life, by meticulous and organized calculations, involving charts, cycles and thermometers.
This contradicts the following Scriptural passage:
Tobias 6:17 – “The holy youth Tobias approaches his bride Sara after three days of prayer, not for fleshly lust but only for the love of posterity. Having been instructed by the Archangel Saint Rapheal that to engage in the marital act he must be moved rather for love of children than for lust. For they who in such manner receive matrimony, as to shut out God from themselves, and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding, over them the devil hath power.”
The meticulous calculations of NFP are designed so that the couple may “give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule” and may avoid having children at the same time. So NFP is against Scripture, but it has been indicated that NFP is in accordance with Catholic teaching (today but I don’t know about before 1950).

I believe there is much abuse in the use of NFP. I want to see more large Catholic families. I wish priests would stop recommending NFP to every couple who mentions they are struggling with their children at a particular moment. But that does not mean NFP is not a legitimate option for some.

Consider that some couples who use NFP may desire more children but have serious medical reasons (such as maternal and child death) to make the bearing of those children in the womb ot the wife immpossible. Perhaps even want more children and plan to adopt. You assume that their marital relations are solely for the purpose of lust, just because the husband may not want to watch his wife bleed to death after childbirth.

Also consider: “but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire.” I Corinthians 7:9

Also earlier in that same letter “Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time,to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self control.” I Corinthians 7:5

I think NFP abuse is the depriving of spouses from one another, that St. Paul tells us not to do. And I think it’s part of the contraceptive mentality that infects our culture. But scripture says it is legitimate to perhaps abstain with mutual consent for a time of prayer and then return to one another. All the charting, thermometers etc. help couple with serious reasons determine when they should abstain for a time of prayer and then also to determine when they can return to one another so the devil will not tempt them through lack of self control. If a couple is legitimatedly married, they should not have to act as if they are unmarried. But apart from serious reasons, we should be encouraged to have more children for scripture tells us many places that children are blessing.

 

[stanley123]

gardenswithkids:

You assume that their marital relations are solely for the purpose of lust, just because the husband may not want to watch his wife bleed to death after childbirth…

According to Scripture, Archangel Saint Raphael say that to engage in the marital act you must be moved by love of children.
So you come up with the idea that there is a grave reason why you might want to have marital relations and avoid children. But this contradicts what the Pope has said:
Pope Pius XI, *Casti Connubii *(#’s 53-56), Dec. 31, 1930:“But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good.”

 

[stanley123]

RyanL:

Natural methods of birth control:

1. You cannot get pregnant before puberty

The Scriptural passage is not talking about getting pregnant before puberty. It is talking about a married couple. And the Archangel instructs the married couple that to engage in the marital act you must be moved by love of children. There is no mention in this Scriptural passage of any exceptions.